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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: results are ordered most recent first and paginated at 20 per page. This helps the agent understand result presentation and pagination, though it doesn't cover rate limits or error behavior.

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?

Two tightly written sentences front-load the core purpose and then include essential behavioral details (ordering, pagination, optional filters). No wasted words, and the information is presented in a logical order.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 optional filters), the description covers purpose, ordering, and pagination. With no output schema, it could briefly mention the return format (e.g., a list of declaration summaries), but annotations and schema cover most needs. It is largely complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 high (86%), so parameter meanings are mostly documented in the schema. The description only adds that all filters are optional, which is already evident from the schema (no required parameters). It does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states a search operation on published declarations, with ordering and pagination details. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fiche_declaration or comparer, but the verb 'Recherche' and resource 'déclarations' make the core purpose clear.

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 description implies usage by describing the search scope and noting all filters are optional, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fiche_declaration or comparer. The agent must infer appropriate contexts.

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