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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), and the description adds real context: corpus scale, sourcing from official texts, per-result return shape (titre, résumé « En bref », adresse), and the no-personal-data / no-price constraints. It does not discuss ranking, result limits, or empty-result behavior.

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?

Purpose and coverage are front-loaded, and every clause is informative for retrieval selection. The long enumeration of subject areas is slightly dense but earns its place by clarifying the corpus boundary.

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 no further explanation, and the description nonetheless confirms the per-guide fields. Corpus scope, usage context, and the read-only/no-price boundaries make it fully sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics including keyword examples. The description restates the topical scope but adds no query syntax or format guidance beyond the schema's baseline.

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?

It states a specific verb (Recherche) and resource (guides et FAQ d'Hypothèques en ligne) and enumerates the covered subject domains, so the agent knows exactly what corpus is searched. The closing constraints ('Ne calcule aucun prix', 'Lecture seule') also implicitly separate it from the pricing/quote siblings.

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?

It explicitly says it is 'Utile pour répondre à une question de définition ou de démarche sur ces sujets en citant une source', which is a clear when-to-use condition. It does not name a sibling alternative or state exclusions beyond the implicit 'Ne calcule aucun prix'.

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