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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behaviour (source URL, each answer carries its own citable URL) but says nothing about result volume, empty-result handling, or how the two filters combine – a 3 against the lower annotated baseline.

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 what the tool returns and how it filters, then the usage note, in three tight clauses. The category list duplicates the schema enum, which is mild redundancy but not enough to drop it below a 4.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers source, filters, and citation behaviour. Only the bisection of the two optional filters is left implicit; otherwise complete for a 2-param, no-required-param read 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the enum values are repeated verbatim from the schema. The description adds no format or combination semantics (e.g. whether query and category are ANDed) beyond what the schema provides, 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 (retrieve published FAQs) with the source URL and the exact filter axes (keywords and/or rubrique). An agent can distinguish this from get_guide and search_comontel_knowledge because it names both the resource and its filter model.

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?

"À utiliser pour les questions pratiques" enumerates concrete trigger topics (engagement, résiliation, portabilité, facture, TVA, eSIM, support), giving clear context for when to reach for it. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling or stating exclusions, so it is not a full 5.

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