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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it explains that omitting all filters returns the entire registry, that filtering is the way to limit payload size, and what content the response will contain. This is consistent with the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive annotations.

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?

The description is a single well-structured sentence with no fluff: it states the return value first, then the filter options, then the default behavior. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple read-only retrieval tool with an output schema and annotations already provided, the description is complete: it tells the agent what it returns, what the parameters are for, and what happens without filters. No critical selection or invocation information 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?

Although the schema has 0% description coverage, the description names all three parameters (method_id, family, version) and explains their role as filters. It could go further by describing value formats or filter combination behavior, but it compensates for the bare schema meaningfully.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Retourne') and resource: the calculation methodology including its sources, hypotheses, and limitations. It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_analysis_report or get_analysis_study because it specifically targets methodology metadata rather than analysis results.

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 gives clear practical guidance on how to use the tool: filter by method_id, family, or version to avoid loading the full registry, and explains the no-filter default behavior. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the intended usage context is well established.

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