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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that results are ranked and include ECLI identifiers and chamber analysis, but it says nothing about rate limits, source coverage, or freshness of the Jurilibre index beyond what the output schema would show.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the mechanism, scope, and outputs come first. It is dense but readable, with only mild redundancy in enumerating return values that the output schema already carries.

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 an output schema present, return-value detail need not be repeated, and annotations cover safety, so the definition is nearly complete for a 2-parameter search tool. The only gap is any guidance on query construction or result interpretation, which is minor here.

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 100%, so both 'query' and 'limit' are already documented with types, defaults, and max values. The description adds no syntax or query-construction guidance (e.g., how to phrase statutory references), so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb and mechanism ('ranked FTS5 precedent search'), the exact resource and jurisdiction ('French Court of Cassation decisions (Judilibre)'), and the returned artifacts ('ECLI identifiers, rulings, chamber analysis'). This scope is plainly distinct from siblings like french_b2b_clause_validator or french_statute_of_limitations, so an agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative sibling tools for related French legal questions, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer the appropriate context entirely.

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