search_filters

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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, open-world operation. The description adds the nature of the returned filters (délais, secteurs, langues, vidéo), which is useful context. However, it does not state authentication needs, rate limits, or response structure beyond what the output schema likely provides.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the kinds of filters returned. 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description gives adequate high-level purpose but misses practical details an agent needs: where to obtain a valid specialty value (e.g., from list_specialities) and any usage constraints. The output schema presumably covers return values.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single required parameter 'speciality'. The description only says 'pour une spécialité', which restates the parameter name without explaining format, source, or constraints. Minimal compensation for the coverage gap.

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 resource: search filters for a given specialty, with examples of filter types (wait times, sectors, languages, video). It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like list_specialities or search_practitioners, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not name alternatives.

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 only usage context is 'for a specialty', which is implied by the required parameter. There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as list_specialities for obtaining valid specialty values.

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