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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it performs keyword search over regulation text and returns the containing articles with zone and number. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences carry all essential information: what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. The examples are compact and useful, with no redundant phrasing.

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?

For a simple read-only search tool with two parameters, a complete schema, and rich annotations, the description is sufficient. It explains the search target, the return shape, and the typical use case. There is no output schema, so the description's mention of returned articles, zone, and number fills that gap well.

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%, with both parameters already well described. The description reinforces the meaning of 'mots' through examples but adds little semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Cherche des mots'), the resource (the text of a French commune's urbanism regulation), and the output (articles with their zone and number). This makes it easy to distinguish from the sibling getter tools, which target permits, street rules, or zone rules rather than full-text keyword search.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Utile quand on ne sait pas dans quel article une regle se trouve', followed by concrete examples like cloture, piscine, toiture, stationnement. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use them, but the intended context is clear.

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