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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond them: it returns titres, extraits and URL, ordered most-relevant to least-relevant. Pagination/total-count behavior is not mentioned, but that is largely covered by the output schema.

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: what is searched, what is returned, when to use it. Efficient, though the trailing parameter recap duplicates the schema and is the one part that does not earn 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in depth; the description nonetheless summarizes them. Search scope, ranking order, and routing rule are all present, leaving only the sibling-overlap question 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description merely restates the same bounds (2–200 characters, 1–20, default 8) without adding format, syntax, or matching semantics beyond what the schema says. 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?

Names a specific verb (recherche plein texte) and enumerates the concrete resources searched (guides, FAQ, glossaire, thèmes de comontel.fr), plus what it returns. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling `search` or from `get_faq`/`get_guide`, whose content overlaps with the sources listed.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: use for any question not covered by another tool, with concrete domain examples (portabilité, eSIM, facture, TVA, réseau). It never names a specific competing sibling (e.g. `search`, `search_offers`, `get_faq`) or states a when-not condition, so an agent still has to guess at the boundary.

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