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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds substantive context beyond them: 24-hour caching, provenance (Légifrance/DILA via API PISTE), Etalab 2.0 licence, and that content is current as of the call date. The only gap is no note on failure behavior for invalid article numbers.

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 lookup key before provenance details. The French/English duplication is slightly redundant, but the bilingual phrasing is deliberate for a French-source tool and each clause carries information.

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 helpfully enumerates what is returned (in-force text, LEGIARTI identifier, entry-into-force date, Légifrance link) plus caching and source provenance. An agent has everything needed to invoke it and interpret the result.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the enum for code and article-number examples. The description restates the same examples (150-0 B ter, 757 B, L. 64) without adding format rules or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 and resource — 'Texte en vigueur d'un article' — scoped to CGI/LPF codes, with the lookup key (article number) and examples. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like bofip_get or conventions_article, which cover different corpora.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource scope (get an article when you know the code and article number), and examples of valid article numbers are given. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance nor any routing against sibling tools that also retrieve tax texts.

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