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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description adds real behavioral context by disclosing the linguistic handling of queries (French preferred, English terms translated) and the breadth of indexed content. It does not describe result ordering or formatting.

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?

Two dense sentences that front-load the scope; the parenthetical topic list is long but serves as useful keyword coverage. No filler sentences.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is searched and the expected query language. Return format and ranking behavior are unspecified, but the annotations and schema carry most of the remaining burden.

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% and only two parameters exist, both documented in the schema. The description reinforces the French-query convention already present in the schema but adds no new semantics for limit or query syntax, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Recherche') and resource ('contenus de WPFormation') and enumerates the content types covered (articles, plugin/theme sheets, pages, tools), which lets an agent distinguish it from get_article. It does not, however, explicitly name the sibling it is not (e.g., get_article for fetching a known article).

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 one piece of usage guidance — query in French, common English terms are translated — but offers no when-to-use framing relative to get_article or comparer_plugins. Usage is only implied by the tool's search semantics.

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