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

Annotations already mark the call as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it searches all repositories since opening and sorts results newest-first. It does not describe result formatting or pagination, but that is less critical given the read-only annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: two short clauses cover purpose, scope, and ordering. The English gloss is somewhat redundant but remains brief and improves accessibility for non-French agents.

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 two-parameter search with one required parameter, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the description plus schema covers everything needed to invoke the tool correctly. It could state the shape of result items, but the ordering and global-scope details already provide enough contextual grounding.

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 the schema already explains `terme` and `limite`. The description adds no param-specific semantics beyond restating `terme` as the searched term, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 an explicit action ('Recherche un terme'), a precise scope ('tous les dépôts depuis l'ouverture'), and an ordering property ('les plus récents d'abord'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. The global-search phrasing is enough to distinguish it from browse/read siblings like `archives` and `lire`.

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 makes the intended use explicit: search across the entire archive, most recent first. However, it gives no when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative or sibling tool, so an agent must infer when to prefer this over `archives`, `lire`, or other related tools.

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