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

Annotations already establish a safe, idempotent, closed-catalog read, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by naming the France-specific catalog scope, listing the covered content types, and specifying the return shape (titres, types, adresses des pages). It omits any note on how limit affects result volume, but that is minor.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause and the return format is stated in a short second sentence. The four quoted example queries are dense but each earns its place by teaching the expected input style.

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, the description usefully states what comes back (titles, types, page addresses) and covers the single required parameter's intent. Only the limit parameter's effect on results is left unexplained, which is a small gap for a two-parameter search tool.

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 50%: query is documented ('La demande, en français') while limit is not. The description reinforces that the query is free-text natural language and French, which is genuinely useful, but adds nothing about the limit parameter or the maximum of 20 — the baseline 3 given partial coverage.

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 (Cherche) and resource (catalogue Vitef) and enumerates the content types it covers — lettres, calculateurs, simulateurs, devis, outils — with four illustrative queries. An agent can identify it as the natural-language discovery entry point, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the get_/list_ siblings that retrieve individual items.

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 only implied through example queries like « résilier ma box Free » rather than stated. It never says when to prefer this over get_calculator, get_letter, or get_quote, nor that this is the first step before calling a specific retriever, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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