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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses dataset scale and freshness (1,966 fiches as of a date) and the meaning of RUP status, but says nothing about read-only nature, pagination behavior, or what a result record contains.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then adds record count and use-case guidance. Four compact sentences with little waste, though the fiscal-benefit detail borders on optional color.

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?

Covers purpose and usage context for a four-parameter filtered-list tool, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say more about return shape and read-only behavior to be fully complete.

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 four parameters (limit, query, region, department) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("List associations officially recognized as utilite publique") with a qualifying criterion that clearly narrows it to a subset, distinguishing it from generic search_associations. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Provides concrete use contexts -- mecenat, defiscalisation, public-private partnerships, B2B research -- which tells an agent when this subset is preferable. It offers no explicit exclusions or named alternative tool, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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