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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, so the description earns credit for adding behavioural detail beyond them: fixed 40000-character paging, the suite.debut resume token, and the official PDF link returned with the text. It does not explain error behaviour for an unresolvable id.

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-loads the tool's purpose and paging scope before the provenance/licence boilerplate. The bilingual duplication is a deliberate corpus convention rather than padding, though the source/licence sentence is less essential to invocation.

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: full text, PDF link, paging chunks and the suite.debut continuation field. What is missing is failure behaviour (invalid id, out-of-range debut), so it is not fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so both acte and debut are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds only the resume hint (reprendre suite.debut) on top of the schema's pagination note, and no additional meaning beyond that.

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 precise verb+resource ('Texte intégral d'un acte … par son identifiant acte'), names the accepted id format (conv-N) and its producer (conventions_search), and distinguishes itself from the sibling conventions_article. An agent can tell exactly what this returns versus the other conventions_* tools.

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?

Explicitly routes single-article lookups to conventions_article and explains where the required id comes from (conventions_search). It lacks broader exclusion guidance (e.g. cost/size caveats for very large acts), but the primary sibling choice is unambiguous.

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