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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds useful behavior beyond that: the payload is in French and it enumerates the fields returned (legal texts with links, penalties, enforcement authority, date in force, upcoming changes), which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in a single sentence, with the argument detail relegated to a compact Args block. The field enumeration is long but each item is a distinct, non-redundant output field rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned content, and it flags the French-language constraint that an agent otherwise would not know. Missing error/not-found behavior for an invalid rule_id, but the essential information for correct invocation is present.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter. It does: it explains provenance ('identifier returned by find_rules or scan_website') and provides a concrete example ('information-precontractuelle-vente-distance'). It omits format constraints such as case sensitivity or handling of an unknown id.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Full detail of one rule of the register') and enumerates the exact content returned, so an agent can distinguish it from find_rules (search) or check_html (evaluation). The French-content note further disambiguates its output.

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?

By specifying the rule_id is 'returned by find_rules or scan_website', it establishes the prerequisite workflow that selects this tool over its siblings. It stops short of saying when not to use it or what happens for an unresolvable id, so it is not a 5.

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