french_associations_search_subsidies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any return format, pagination behavior, rate limits, or other runtime characteristics. This is a bare statement of intent with zero behavioral transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence, which is structurally efficient. However, it under-specifies the tool to the point of being nearly useless. It packs no actionable information beyond the tool name, so it is not appropriately sized for the information burden it should carry.

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 tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to explain expected inputs, outputs, or usage context. It does not clarify what 'subsidy datasets' means, how to combine parameters, or what the response looks like. The agent is left with too little to call the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema only gives parameter names (page_size, place_or_topic) without descriptions. The tool description does not explain how these parameters affect the search, their expected formats, or any constraints beyond the raw schema. It adds no semantic value over the parameter names.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('data.gouv.fr'), and scope ('public subsidy datasets related to associations'). It is clear about what the tool does and distinguishes it from a generic dataset search by specifying 'subsidy datasets'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like french_associations_search_datasets, leaving some ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., search_datasets, get_sources). No context about preferred scenarios, filters, or exclusions is provided. An agent would need to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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