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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that – not what a tool description returns, not how a missing tool is handled, not the set of valid operations. With no output schema, the absence of return-shape context is a real gap.

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 short sentences with no padding, and the action is front-loaded. But the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than economy.

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 two-parameter introspection tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should at minimum enumerate the operations and explain what is returned. Neither is present, leaving an agent unable to build a valid or interpretable call.

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 description coverage is 0% across both parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it: 'nom' is never mentioned, and 'operation' is described only by the tautology 'choisit une opération' with no enumerated or example values. An agent would have to guess what to pass.

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 names a specific verb and resource – 'Décrit un outil' – which is enough to set it apart from the explorer_* siblings, all of which are read-only domain explorers rather than a registry-lookup tool. The qualifier 'accessible' is vague about scope, but the core action is unmistakable.

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?

'operation choisit une opération' is circular and gives no indication of which operations exist or when to call this instead of an explorer_* tool. The description states no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no alternatives.

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