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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: the result shape { id, title, url } and the relevance ordering of returns, plus the 'recherche approfondie de ChatGPT' format expectation.

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 front-loaded sentences that each carry information: scope, return shape plus follow-up tool, and the alternative tool. Dense but no obvious filler; the parenthetical field list is compact.

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 detailed, yet the description still sketches the document shape. Scope, follow-up (fetch) and alternative (search_comontel_knowledge) are all present; only prioritization against the many plan/price siblings is unaddressed.

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?

Only one parameter, whose schema description ('Mots-clés ou question') already documents it at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra guidance on query syntax, keyword-vs-question behavior, or the 200-character limit.

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 (Recherche) and the exact corpora searched (forfaits, guides, FAQ, glossaire, thèmes de comontel.fr), and distinguishes itself from two siblings by naming both fetch and search_comontel_knowledge. An agent can tell it apart without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes downstream work to fetch ('lire le contenu d'un document avec fetch') and names search_comontel_knowledge as the alternative when a direct answer with excerpts is wanted. It stops short of stating when this tool is the wrong choice, e.g. for pricing or plan comparison queries covered by siblings like get_plans or recommend_plan.

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