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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. Beyond them, the description adds the useful fact that each answer carries its own URL to cite, but says nothing about how the two filters combine, what happens with no match, or result limits. A 3 reflects modest added value over the 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the source URL and filtering scope, then the citation fact, then the use-case list. Every sentence carries information, though the verbatim enumeration of the eight rubriques duplicates the enum and is the one removable section.

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 zero required parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema, and complete annotations, the description only needs to convey scope and purpose — which it does. The remaining gap is filter-combination behavior and empty-result handling, minor for a read-only lookup tool.

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% — the query parameter has an example set and the category parameter is a documented enum with all eight values. The description repeats the category list, which duplicates the enum rather than adding meaning, and it doesn't clarify whether query and category are combined with AND or OR semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it retrieves published FAQ entries from comontel.fr/faq, filtered by keywords and/or category, and each answer has its own citable URL. It is reasonably distinct from siblings like get_guide and search_comontel_knowledge in that it is scoped to the published FAQ, but it never explicitly states that contrast.

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 says when to use it: 'questions pratiques' with a concrete topic list (engagement, résiliation, portabilité, facture, TVA, eSIM, support). That is clear usage context, but it offers no exclusions and doesn't say when to prefer search_comontel_knowledge, get_guide, or search_offers instead, which matters given the crowded sibling set.

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