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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the public-catalog and title-level scope, and does not disclose additional behaviors such as result ordering, pagination behavior, or locale fallback beyond what the schema already documents.

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 concise and front-loaded, using two short bilingual sentences with no filler. The FR/EN duplication is justified by the bilingual context, though it leaves behavioral and selection detail to the schema and 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?

For a simple read-only catalog search tool, the schema and annotations carry most of the burden and are quite complete. However, the description does not differentiate this tool from its only sibling, search_infoceutiques, and does not clarify whether results contain only titles or fuller card content, leaving a meaningful selection gap.

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%, and the schema already documents every parameter, including enums, defaults, and cross-references like pagination.next_offset and categories[].id. The tool description itself contributes no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Rechercher ou parcourir' the 'titres des fiches d’information du catalogue public'. It clearly identifies what the tool acts on and that it covers public information-card titles, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool search_infoceutiques.

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 a search-versus-browse distinction, reinforced by the query parameter's note to 'omit to browse by title'. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over search_infoceutiques or provide exclusion criteria, so usage guidance is mostly implicit.

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