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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the URL is resolved against the index and never fetched over the network, and the return payload differs by content type (Markdown body split into parts for articles, structured details otherwise). It stops short of documenting error behavior or what happens when neither id nor url is supplied.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then addressing modes, then return payload — a logical order. Two dense sentences with no filler, though the parenthetical example list is long enough to make the first sentence slightly hard to scan.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes responsibility for describing the return value (title, canonical URL, dates, section, sources, attribution, Markdown parts vs. structured details), which is exactly what an agent needs. Remaining unknowns (mutual exclusivity of id/url, out-of-range part) are minor for a read-only lookup tool covered by strong annotations.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does explain all three parameters: what an id looks like (prefix:value examples), that url must be the canonical ip73.fr form and is only index-looked-up, and that part selects a Markdown chunk of an article. The notable gap is that both id and url are optional in the schema yet the description never states that one of them is required, nor what part defaults to or how it behaves out of range.

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 (lit / reads) and resource (contenu public IP73) plus the two exact addressing modes (id, canonical URL) with concrete id examples for three content families. An agent can immediately tell this is a single-item fetch, distinct from latest_content/search_content listing tools.

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 phrase 'champ id des résultats' implies the id comes from a prior search/listing call, which is useful routing context, but the description never states it explicitly nor names an alternative tool. There is no exclusion guidance (e.g., 'do not use for listing or full-text search'), so usage is only implied.

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