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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond annotations by disclosing the return shape (titres, résumés, liens) and the unsearchable es/pt corpus, but stays silent on pagination and the interaction with the limit cap.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose, return values, then the language caveat, front-loaded with the primary function. No filler, though the corpus-size figures are borderline colour rather than operational detail.

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 search with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what is searched, what comes back (titles, summaries, links), and the language-coverage caveat. The gap is the absence of any guidance on the limit/query parameters, which the schema leaves bare.

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 only 33% — just 'locale' is documented, and its schema text already explains the fr/en/es/pt behaviour in more detail than the description. The description adds nothing about 'query' (syntax, matching) or 'limit' (default 10, max 30), so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 and resource ('Cherche dans le blog') and quantifies the corpus (1 500+ FR, as many EN), which distinguishes it from the sibling search_books, search_concepts and search_tests by making the 'articles/blog' scope explicit. It stops short of naming those siblings directly, so differentiation relies on inference.

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?

Provides a partial when-not by stating the es/pt pages are 'non cherchables ici', which scopes the tool, but gives no positive guidance on when to prefer search_articles over get_article or the other search_* tools. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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