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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing matching semantics (all words required, prefix matching, accent/case folding), the fields scanned, the ranking rule (title hits first, then date), and hard pagination caps of 20 per page and 100 total. These are behavioral constraints an agent cannot derive from the annotations or 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?

A single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the core mechanism and ordering, then the exclusions, then the type catalog, then pagination and the follow-up tool. The long type enumeration is information-dense rather than filler, though it does make the block harder to scan than a bulleted form would be.

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 seven-parameter search tool with no output schema, the definition covers matching, ranking, type scope, pagination limits and the follow-up read path, which is most of what an agent needs to call it correctly. The remaining gap is that it never says what a result record actually contains (only that get_content must be used to read one), leaving the shape of the list response implicit.

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 only 57%, but the description compensates for the weakest parameter: it spells out all eleven type values with human-readable labels and corpus counts (e.g. cve = 1781, cloud_incident = 1221) and notes that all types are searched by default. It also documents the 20-per-page pagination ceiling and the cursor mechanism. It adds little for from/to/section beyond what the schema already says, which keeps it from a 5.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource ('Recherche lexicale déterministe dans tous les contenus publics d'IP73') and immediately specifies the matching mechanism: every query word must appear as a word-prefix, accent- and case-insensitive, in title, summary, section, keywords or fields. It explicitly excludes semantic search and enumerates the eleven searchable content types, so an agent can tell exactly what this does versus a semantic or type-specific 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?

Usage is implied by the scope ('tous les contenus publics') and by the exclusion 'Pas de recherche sémantique', and the definition does route the agent forward with 'Lire un résultat avec get_content'. However, it never states when to prefer the sibling search_cves or search_scams over this broader search, nor when latest_content would be more appropriate. Guidance exists but is inferential rather than explicit.

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