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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral contract: the tool is a dispatcher whose per-operation argument shape must be fetched via decrire_outil before use, plus an instruction to preserve the procedure phase and references in results — real context beyond the 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?

The resource framing is front-loaded and the text is short, but the decrire_outil instruction is stated twice in near-identical wording, wasting one of only three sentences. The clause about preserving procedure phase and references is vague and unanchored to any concrete behavior.

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 23-operation dispatcher with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description is thin — it never groups the operations into families (thematic files, cassation, appel, orientations, circulaires, parcours) that would let an agent pick correctly. The decrire_outil escape hatch mitigates this but pushes all real discovery into 23 follow-up calls.

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% and 'arguments' is an undocumented free-form object, so the description bears the burden. It partially compensates by routing the agent to decrire_outil for the exact per-operation contract, but it never explains that 'arguments' varies per operation nor gives any example, leaving the second required parameter opaque.

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 names the resource domain (criminal case files, pathways, decisions, orientations) but uses a bare noun phrase with no verb, and gives no cue to distinguish it from close siblings such as explorer_procedure_penale or explorer_qualification_et_peines. The 23-operation enum in the schema does more to reveal the actual scope than the description does.

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 gives one explicit procedural rule — pick an operation, then call decrire_outil with that name to get the exact contract before invoking. That is genuinely useful workflow guidance, but there is no guidance on when this explorer should be chosen over its many sibling explorers, nor which operation class fits a given question.

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