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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are published declarations ordered alphabetically, which is useful, but says nothing about return shape, empty/missing declarations, or the 2-5 limit being enforced.

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 with no filler; the parenthetical ordering note is the only extra, and it carries real information about result sequencing.

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 two fully documented parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies enough to call the tool correctly and know roughly what comes back (published declarations side by side). Only return-detail specifics are missing, which is acceptable here.

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 100%, so both `theme` and `candidats` are already documented with examples. The description restates the 2-5 range and alphabetical ordering, which the schema already encodes via minItems/maxItems, so it adds little beyond the structured data.

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 action on a specific resource: published declarations of 2-5 candidates on one theme, presented side by side. This is clearly distinguishable from fiche_declaration (single record) and rechercher_declarations (search), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 comparison intent and the 2-5 candidate constraint imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over rechercher_declarations or fiche_declaration. The schema points to lister_themes for theme names, but the description itself offers no routing.

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