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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the useful behavioral detail that it returns the complete text, not just metadata or a preview. No side effects, auth needs, or error behavior are disclosed, but for a read-only, one-parameter fetch the description is sufficiently transparent.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every phrase earns its place by defining the input, the return content, and the covered document types.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it states what to pass, where the id comes from, what will be returned, and which documents are in scope.

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%: the schema already documents the id as the identifier returned by search with examples like 'pack_062, club-argent ou methode-app24'. The description repeats this provenance but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 names a specific verb and resource: it 'Rend le texte complet d'un document APP24' and scopes documents to catalog offers or the progression method. It is clear, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with sibling tools such as detail_offre, so differentiation is only implicit in the phrase 'texte complet ... tel que rendu par search'.

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 phrase 'tel que rendu par search' gives an explicit usage condition: call this after search, when you have an identifier and need the full document text. It does not list when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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