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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the payload (nested taxonomy with uncovered sectors, redistribution flags on series values) but says nothing about result size, pagination, ordering, or what happens when filters match nothing — a notable gap for an unfiltered 'every published signal' call.

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?

There is no filler, but the content is packed into two long run-on sentences with a dense comma-separated payload enumeration that is hard to scan. The return-value detail is justified by the absent output schema, yet the field list could be grouped more clearly and the filter paragraph separated.

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 and zero schema description coverage, the description correctly compensates by describing both the returned shape and the meaning of every filter. It falls short only on operational behavior (pagination, ordering, empty results) and on disambiguating against the sibling list/read 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all five parameters alone, and it largely does: q is text in title or slug, geography is an ISO code, and filiere is the sector id sourced from the taxonomy tree. The only shortfall is that domain and mechanism get no more than their names, and the maxLength constraints are left to the schema.

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 concretely that it returns every published signal and enumerates the fields (slug, title, date, mechanism, geography codes, series keys, counts, dossier summary, URLs), which clearly distinguishes it from the singular get_signal sibling. It never names that sibling explicitly, and the verb is implicit in 'Every published signal' rather than stated up front.

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?

Usage is implied rather than prescribed: the optional filters suggest browsing/searching, but the description never says when to choose this over get_signal, get_edition, or get_series. There are no exclusions or prerequisite notes, and no guidance on whether the unfiltered call returns the full corpus.

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