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

Annotations already indicate this is read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavior: all words must match, constraints of 2–200 characters and max 12 words, no semantic interpretation, and pagination via page_suivante. It also discloses return fields, including absolute URLs, which is useful beyond the 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: purpose first, matching mechanics second, return shape and pagination third. Every sentence adds distinct value, and there is no filler.

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 read-only, paginated search tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the search fields, defines matching behavior, states the returned fields, excludes casting, and explains how to paginate. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly with just a recherche parameter.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description compensates well for the recherche and champ parameters by explaining that all words must appear in chosen fields and how matching works. It also links page to page_suivante pagination. The limite parameter is left to its schema default/name, so coverage is good but not complete.

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 specific verb and resource: retrieving public films by words in their title or synopsis breakdown. It also clarifies that this is SQL textual search, not semantic, and that casting is not included. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 gives clear usage context: all given words must appear in the selected fields, search is exact textual SQL rather than semantic, and no casting is returned. It implies when to avoid the tool (semantic needs, cast lookups) but does not explicitly mention sibling tools such as obtenir_film or rechercher_diffusions.

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