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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: a mandatory contract-discovery step via decrire_outil before invocation, and the warning that territories and institutions must be distinguished. It still says nothing about response shape or what a dispatch failure looks like.

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 final two sentences are near-duplicates, both stating that decrire_outil must be called with the chosen operation name before use — pure redundancy. The domain scoping is front-loaded well, but the repetition wastes roughly a third of the text.

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 dispatcher with an 11-value enum, an undocumented nested arguments object and no output schema, the description does cover the critical prerequisite (fetch the contract first) and the domain boundaries. It remains incomplete on how to populate 'arguments' and on what results look like, which matters because each operation likely has a different contract.

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%. The enum value names are self-explanatory for 'operation', and the description gestures at passing the chosen operation name (calling it 'nom' rather than the actual field name 'operation'). But the required free-form 'arguments' object — additionalProperties true, nested — is never explained at all, leaving the agent to guess its shape per operation.

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 a domain (Senegalese/West African law, OHADA, UEMOA) and instructs distinguishing territories and institutions, which does separate it from siblings like explorer_droit_europeen or explorer_sources_francaises. However, it never states what the tool actually does — it is implicitly a dispatcher over an 'operation' enum, and that verb+resource framing is never spelled out.

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 an explicit workflow: pick an operation, then call decrire_outil with that operation name to obtain the exact contract before use. That is concrete 'how/when' guidance, and it names the sibling decrire_outil directly. It stops short of saying when to prefer this domain router over another explorer_* router.

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