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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It reveals the database size (2.03M+ associations) and search scope but does not confirm read-only nature or mention rate limits, performance, or side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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: it states the purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds meaningful information without 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 no output schema, it summarizes return fields (name, object, location, RNA ID, SIRET). It covers filter capabilities well. Minor omissions include pagination behavior details and authentication needs, but overall sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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%, and all schema descriptions are clear. The description adds value by providing concrete examples for each filter (e.g., department codes, region names), enhancing semantic understanding beyond the schema.

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 searches for French associations using full-text search against the RNA database. It specifies the verb 'search' and the resource 'associations', and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_association' and 'search_near_location' by scope.

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?

It explicitly lists supported search modes (keywords, department, region) and gives examples. However, it does not contrast with alternatives like 'search_premium_associations' or 'get_similar_associations', leaving some ambiguity on when to choose this tool.

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