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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not state whether the operation is read-only (implied by "Récupère," but not declared), whether missing IDs raise errors vs return null, or what authentication is required. Behavior beyond the shallow verb is undisclosed.

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, tight sentence with no filler. Concise and front-loaded, though extremely short given the surrounding ambiguity.

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 lookup tool with zero annotation coverage, 0% parameter description, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It should at least clarify the read-only nature, the return shape or error behavior, and id/slug precedence.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says lookup can be by "id ou par slug," which barely restates the parameter names. It does not clarify whether both parameters can be passed simultaneously, precedence rules, or expected formats.

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 verb and resource ("Récupère une communauté" - retrieves a community) and adds lookup keys (id or slug). It is clear what the tool does, but it offers no differentiation from the sibling mcp_list_communities or mcp_get_user, which an agent would need to disambiguate retrieval-by-identifier vs listing.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus mcp_list_communities (which lists all) or other get_* tools. The reader must infer usage entirely from the name; there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives named.

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