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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the requirement to preserve qualification, dates, and procedural phase, and to fetch the exact contract via decrire_outil before use, but it does not explain what each operation returns or how arguments are handled.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the second and third sentences repeat the same decrire_outil prerequisite almost verbatim. The repetition wastes space without adding information.

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 tool with eight operations, a nested free-form arguments object, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is thin. Delegating to decrire_outil is a reasonable mitigation, but the description still leaves the agent without enough domain or parameter detail to know what is being audited or calculated.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only says to call decrire_outil for the exact contract and vaguely references qualification, dates, and phase. It does not explain the structure of the arguments object or what each of the eight operation enum values expects.

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 states the domain (criminal procedure and sentence execution) and implies checks/audits, but never names a concrete verb or explains what the eight operations actually do. It is distinguishable from broad siblings like explorer_jurisprudence only by domain, not by action.

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 tells the agent to pick an operation and call decrire_outil first, which is a workflow prerequisite, not guidance on when to use this tool versus explorer_qualification_et_peines or explorer_dossiers_penaux. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided.

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