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). The description goes beyond them by disclosing content caveats: warnings for denounced or non-in-force acts, OCR-derived text, amendments to verify, and the explicit 'Aucune reformulation' guarantee plus corpus snapshot date. This is meaningful disclosure the annotations cannot carry.

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 content caveats. It is somewhat long because the French and English halves largely duplicate each other, but each sentence carries substantive information rather than filler.

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 read-only lookup with 6 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description explains what comes back (act title, official PDF, amendment notes, warnings), the data provenance and version, and the licence. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description nevertheless adds value: concrete article formats (18, 1er, 28 bis), the `objet: successions` special case, and the semantics of `paragraphe` as isolating a numbered paragraph, which the schema text only states tersely.

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 and resource: 'Texte EXACT d'un article d'une convention fiscale conclue par la France'. It is clearly distinct from the sibling search/get tools, which retrieve treaties or lists rather than a single verbatim 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?

The description tells the agent how to invoke it ('Donner `pays` (ou `acte`) et `article`', `objet: successions`, `paragraphe`) but never says when to prefer it over conventions_get, conventions_search or legifrance_article. Usage is implied by the 'one exact article' scope rather than stated.

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