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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: currency limited to in-force versions, result shape (ranked BOI ids, excerpt, publication date, official permalink), data freshness cutoff (30/09/2026) and licence provenance.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and return contract in the first sentence; bilingual duplication is justified for a French-language corpus but the source/licence line is repeated in both languages, which is mild redundancy.

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 correctly compensates by describing the return fields and the permalink. Combined with disclosed coverage window and source, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret results, though freshness of the underlying stock versus the cutoff date could be stated more precisely.

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 query/limit/serie are already documented in the schema, including the series examples. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior, so the 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 sémantique') plus resource ('Bulletin officiel des finances publiques / BOFiP-Impôts'), and explicitly scopes it to 'versions en vigueur seulement'. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling bofip_get, which it names as the follow-up for reading full text.

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?

Clear context: use this to find BOI references, then use bofip_get to read the text, and only current versions are covered. It names the alternative tool and the handoff, but gives no explicit exclusions (e.g. when to prefer conventions_search or legifrance_article for non-BOFiP tax material).

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