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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses non-obvious behaviors: redirect resolution to the replacement article, fallback to nearby articles for unknown addresses, and section-scoped extraction. These are exactly the runtime traits an agent cannot infer from 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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with what is read and followed by parameter/edge-case behavior. Efficient, though the final sentence packs multiple distinct cases together.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields plus edge-case outcomes (redirects, unknown addresses, non-article pages). An agent has enough to call it correctly and anticipate the response shape.

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 100%, but the description still adds value by explaining that section accepts an anchor, a sommaire number, or intertitre words, and that slug accepts either a bare slug or a full address including a #ancre form.

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 ('Lit') and resource ('un article WPFormation') and enumerates what is returned (titre, catégorie, dates, texte, sommaire des intertitres). A sibling like search_articles is implicitly distinguished by single-article-by-slug scope, though no sibling is named.

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?

Gives clear context for the section parameter (one part at a time, also via #ancre) and what the tool yields for categories, service pages, tools, redirected URLs and unknown addresses. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over search_articles, so it falls short of the top score.

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