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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive context beyond that: it returns full text, a citable URL and metadata (type, dates, statut), which tells the agent what it gets back and why. It does not mention size limits or pagination.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the retrieval purpose, then the accepted input. No filler or redundancy.

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 a single fully-documented parameter and an output schema present, the description covers what is needed: where the id comes from, what the tool returns, and its place in the search-then-fetch flow. Nothing essential 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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself already says the id is from search or a comontel.fr URL. The description goes further by giving a concrete path example ('/forfaits/pro'), which clarifies the expected format beyond the schema text.

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: retrieving the full text of a document previously found with search, plus its URL and metadata. It names the exact document kinds (forfait, guide, FAQ, glossaire, thème), so an agent can distinguish it from search and from the get_* siblings.

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 explicitly ties this tool to a prior `search` call ('document trouvé avec search'), which tells the agent when this tool is the right follow-up. It does not name the alternative get_guide/get_faq/get_plan siblings or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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