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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses that data is non-exhaustive, limited to local authorities, and that RNA only covers loi-1901 associations. While it doesn't explicitly state it's a read-only safe operation, the context implies it. The limitations are well communicated.

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?

The description is highly concise, starting with the verb 'Get' and main purpose. It efficiently lists return fields and uses capitalization for important caveats ('IMPORTANT: NON-exhaustive'). Every sentence adds necessary information with no redundancy.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers input and output semantics. It describes the return content (yearly grants with funder, purpose, amount) and important limitations. However, it does not specify the exact JSON structure or pagination, which might be helpful for parsing.

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?

The single parameter 'association_id' has full schema coverage (100%) with a description. The tool description adds value by clarifying the RNA ID format (W followed by 9 chars) and providing an example ('W751000001'), which helps ensure correct invocation beyond the schema's 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves public subsidies for an association, resolved to RNA from French open data. It specifies return fields (yearly grants, funder, purpose, amount) and distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle volunteering, general association info, or statistics.

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?

Description provides critical caveats about non-exhaustiveness and data source limitations (only local authorities publishing SCDL). It implicitly guides when to use (when subsidy info needed) and warns against over-interpreting absence of data. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it.

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