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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the search operates on a 'public index', implying no authentication is needed. It does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or response behavior, but the read-only nature is consistent and the added public-access context provides some value beyond 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 a single, focused sentence that states the core action and scope immediately. There is no redundant information or filler; every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 tool with no output schema and minimal schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to construct a query, what the 'limite' parameter controls, or what kind of results to expect. An agent would need to guess important invocation details, making this insufficient for reliable tool selection and use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not explain 'requete' (query) or 'limite' (limit) at all. The description only describes the overall search action, leaving parameter semantics entirely to inference from names.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Recherche dans l'index public des pages de ScoreInnov.com' – a specific verb (recherche) and resource (index public). It also lists content areas, making the scope understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like barometre_cle_personne or benchmark_sectoriel, though the general search nature is implicitly distinct.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There are no when/when-not conditions, no mention of alternatives, and no context about prerequisites. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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