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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing what the payload contains (citation, contexte, date, source, archived copy, formulation history), which is the main behavioral unknown for a detail-read tool.

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, no filler, and the enumerations of returned content earn their place by telling the agent what to expect. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 one required parameter, full schema coverage, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining missing piece by effectively summarizing the return content in the absence of an output schema. Only the error case (unknown id) is left unaddressed.

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% and the schema itself clarifies that the id is the same 'id' field used by the other tools, so the parameter is fully documented. The description adds nothing further about the identifier, which is acceptable given the schema baseline.

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 the specific resource (a single declaration's detail sheet) and enumerates the content returned: exact quote, context, date, source, archived copy, and formulation history. That clearly separates it from list/search siblings like lister_candidats or rechercher_declarations, 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?

Usage is only implied by the singular 'd'une déclaration' and the id parameter: fetch one record by identifier. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over rechercher_declarations or comparer, nor any prerequisite context.

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