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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states the tool lists associations and gives a current count, but does not disclose any operational behaviors such as read-only nature, response format, pagination, or potential side effects. The description focuses on domain context rather than behavioral disclosure.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes relevant domain context (RUP fiscal benefits) that helps an agent understand the tool's value, but this extra detail is not excessive. The structure is efficient with no wasted words.

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?

The description provides useful domain context (what RUP means, fiscal implications) but does not describe the return structure or any prerequisites. Given there is no output schema, the description could explain what fields are returned or how results are ordered. However, for a simple list tool with filters, the description is adequate though not exhaustive.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters (limit, query, region, department) are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, merely reinforcing the keyword filter example. Since schema fully covers parameters, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists associations with a specific designation (RUP) and provides a precise definition. It distinguishes itself from the broader sibling search_associations by specifying the RUP filter, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and easily differentiated.

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 explicitly recommends the tool for institutional grounding use cases (mecenat, defiscalisation, partnerships, B2B research). While it doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, the recommended scenarios provide clear guidance on when to use it.

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