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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the data source and scope, and the verb 'List' implies a read-only operation. It also provides a useful current record count and date. However, it does not mention ordering, pagination behavior, or whether filters are optional/exclusive, but these are already partially covered by the input schema.

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 three sentences, with the core action is front-loaded. The second sentence adds relevant context (count and fiscal implications) and the third gives clear usage guidance. There is no wasted verbiage or repetition of schema information.

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?

For a list tool with well-described input parameters, the description is mostly complete. It states what is returned, the legal basis, and typical use cases. The only missing piece is a description of the output structure, which would be useful but is not required given no output schema exists. Overall, enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already describes all four parameters with some detail (limit, query, region, department). The description adds no extra meaning to these parameters, such as syntax or relationship between them. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate and the description delivers no additional value here.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List associations officially recognized as utilite publique (RUP) by French state decree.' This clearly identifies the exact scope and differentiates it from sibling tools like search_associations or get_similar_associations by focusing on RUP status. The purpose is immediately unmistakable.

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?

The description gives a clear context: 'Recommended for institutional grounding -- mecenat, defiscalisation, public-private partnerships, B2B research.' This tells an agent when this tool is valuable. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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