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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the non-obvious dispatch behavior — that the tool is a two-step façade requiring a decrire_outil lookup before a valid call — which is real behavioral context an agent would otherwise not know. It still omits error behavior for an invalid operation name and any indication of what results look 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 opening clause is dense and front-loaded, but the final two sentences are near-verbatim duplicates ('appeler decrire_outil avec son nom' / 'appeler decrire_outil avec nom = opération choisie'), wasting roughly a third of the text on a single repeated instruction.

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 32-operation open-world dispatcher with an opaque nested `arguments` object and no output schema, the description does the minimum: it routes the agent to decrire_outil for the real contract. It does not convey the breadth of covered domains, how results are shaped, or how to choose among 32 operations, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%: the 32-value operation enum has no per-value documentation and `arguments` is an unconstrained additionalProperties object. The description compensates meta-semantically by telling the agent that the exact argument contract must be fetched via decrire_outil with the chosen operation name, but it does not itself explain what any operation expects, so a correct call requires a second tool call.

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 (French legal sources, their versions and relations, plus qualification and applicable-law checks) and a verb (search/consult), which separates it loosely from explorer_sources_officielles and explorer_droit_europeen. But the tool is actually a 32-operation multiplexer whose enum spans Judilibre exports, Défenseur des droits decisions, Kali conventions and international-crimes case law — none of which the description hints at, so the stated purpose under-represents the actual scope.

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 a concrete invocation procedure: pick an operation, then call decrire_outil with that operation name to obtain the exact contract before use. That is genuinely actionable. However, it says nothing about when to prefer this explorer over its many siblings (explorer_sources_officielles, explorer_jurisprudence, explorer_fonds_et_couverture) or when an operation belongs to a different explorer.

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