Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses data source (official registry, not search index), specific data fields returned (legal status, JO history, subsidies, public web presence), and explicitly excludes private data (email/phone). No contradictions. Minor gap: could mention potential latency or need for exact match.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is three sentences, front-loaded with core purpose and key data details. Could be slightly more concise by combining some clauses, but no wasteful phrases. Information is well-organized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (legal status, creation date, JO history, subsidies, public web presence) and explicitly states what is excluded (email/phone). For a single-parameter detail tool, this provides complete understanding of capabilities and limitations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'association_id'. Description adds meaning by specifying the exact format (RNA ID: W + 9 chars, or fiche slug), which aids correct input construction beyond schema's generic description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'detail of ONE already-identified association', and explicitly distinguishes itself from search tools. It specifies input format (RNA ID or fiche slug) and data included (RUP, creation date, etc.).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use: when user asks about a specific association (e.g., 'is it RUP?', 'when was it created?'). Advises against re-running search, providing clear context for choosing this tool over siblings like 'search_associations'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.