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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it caps the result set at 5 items and specifies the return content (questions/answers or guide excerpts with URLs). 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence names the resource, gives concrete topic examples, and states the output limit and format. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition.

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 one documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input scope, allowed subjects, maximum result count, and output content. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The only parameter 'question' is fully documented in the schema as 'Question ou mots-clés, en français'. The description reinforces that the query is a free-text French question or keywords, but adds little beyond what the schema already provides. A baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema description coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Recherche') and a concrete resource: the FAQ and guides on etatdate.fr, with examples of covered topics. It also states the output shape (up to five Q/A or guide excerpts with URLs), making it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools about documents and tariffs.

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 context of use is implied: it should be used when the agent needs to answer questions using the etatdate.fr FAQ/guides, especially on the listed topics. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as etatdate_tarifs or etatdate_documents_requis, leaving routing partly to inference.

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