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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioural context beyond that: the 40000-character paging model, the resume offset, the returned PDF link, and data provenance/licence. It does not state what happens at the end of the corpus or how to detect completion, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Purpose, alternative routing and provenance are front-loaded in the first two sentences. The bilingual duplication doubles the byte count, though each language block is internally tight and no sentence is filler within its language.

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 adequately: full text, PDF link, and slice-based paging. Minor gap: it never says how the agent knows it has reached the last slice, only that paging exists.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 40000-character chunking and the 'suite.debut' resume hint. The description largely restates that chunk size rather than adding new semantics, 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+resource ('Texte intégral d'un acte ... par son identifiant acte'), enumerates what counts as an acte (convention, avenant, protocole), and explicitly separates itself from conventions_article (single article) and conventions_search (id source). An agent can route correctly without opening any 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (full text by id), names the alternative for the adjacent case ('Pour un seul article, préférer conventions_article'), and tells the agent where the required id comes from ('rendu par conventions_search'). That is when/when-not/alternatives all present.

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