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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: fixed page size of 10 results and the composite id format that downstream tools consume. It stops short of stating total page limits (page max 20 is only in the schema) or what happens when no racket matches.

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 dense sentences with zero filler; the primary capability comes first and the pagination/id detail second. Every clause carries usable information for the caller.

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 no output schema, the description compensates well by disclosing page size and the id format. For a 9-parameter, zero-required tool it is nearly complete; the gaps are the unmentioned sort parameter and pagination bounds, plus multi-filter interaction, all of which an agent can infer but not confirm.

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 67%, so the schema already documents nom, marque, prix, poids, niveau and gamme. The description restates the filter dimensions but adds no syntax, format, or combination semantics (e.g. whether filters are ANDed), and never mentions the tri or page parameters at all. Baseline 3 for a schema that does most of the work.

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?

States a specific verb ("Liste"), a precise resource ("raquettes de padel") and two distinct retrieval modes — by name (marque/modèle/joueur) or by criteria — then enumerates the criteria. It also names the follow-up sibling voir_raquettes and the identifier format that connects the two, so an agent can place it against its siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Clear about the two paths (free-text name vs. structured filters) and explicitly routes the agent to voir_raquettes using the returned "marque/modele-annee" id. It does not say when to prefer recommander_raquettes over a criteria search, which is the one obvious sibling routing decision left to inference.

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