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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new operational context: 40000-character paging, the returned fields (title, publication date, permalink), and the data-freshness cutoff of 30/09/2026.

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?

Core purpose and pagination are front-loaded, and every clause carries information. The bilingual duplication and source/licence boilerplate add length without adding much, but nothing is truly wasted.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming title, publication date and permalink, plus the paging contract. Only the absence of an explicit route to bofip_search keeps it short of complete.

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% so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further: it notes the BOI id may be given 'avec ou sans date', and it explains that `debut` pages in 40000-character tranches and should be resumed from suite.debut, which the schema does not say.

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+resource (read the text of a BOFiP document) and the exact keying mechanism (by BOI id). This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling bofip_search, which is the tool you would use to obtain such an id.

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?

The description implies the prerequisite (you must already hold a BOI identifier) but never names bofip_search as the way to find one, nor states when to prefer this tool over it. Usage is inferable from 'by BOI id' rather than explicit.

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