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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no mention of result format, ranking, pagination, or what happens on an empty query.

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?

It is a single tight sentence with no filler, but the brevity stems from under-specification rather than economy: the fragment omits the verb and any usage or parameter information.

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 search tool with no output schema and two undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. It does not convey what a call returns or how search behaves, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it versus sibling search tools.

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% for both 'query' and 'limit', so the description carries the full burden and does not compensate. It never explains that 'query' is a free-text search term or what 'limit' controls, though the examples hint at the queryable subject matter.

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 names a domain ('concepts et modèles cliniques') and gives concrete examples (attachement, Gottman, schémas de Young), which loosely distinguishes it from the article/book/test searchers. However it is a noun phrase with no verb, never stating that it performs a search, so an agent must infer the action from the tool name.

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?

There is no indication of when to choose this tool over search_articles, search_books, or search_tests, nor any prerequisites or exclusion conditions. The sentence only describes content, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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