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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that each document carries version and provenance information, which is useful output context, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or what a failed operation lookup returns.

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 inventory is front-loaded, which is good, but the two closing sentences say essentially the same thing twice ('call decrire_outil with its name before use' / 'call decrire_outil with name = chosen operation to get its exact contract before use'). That duplication is pure waste in an otherwise short description.

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 15 operations, a free-form nested arguments object and no output schema, the mandatory decrire_outil step is the right structural answer to the missing contract detail. What remains missing is any mapping between this tool's scope and the neighbouring doctrine/sources explorers, which is the main ambiguity an agent faces when choosing among them.

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% and the `arguments` object is a free-form bag whose contents vary per operation, which would normally be a severe gap. The description partially compensates by instructing the agent to call decrire_outil for the exact contract of the chosen operation, giving a concrete discovery path. Still, nothing here describes what the arguments contain or how the operation enum maps to argument shapes.

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 well (official documents, tax doctrine, circulars, agreements, opinions, plus version/provenance metadata), which tells an agent what corpus this covers. But it never explains that this is a 15-operation dispatcher, nor does it distinguish it from siblings like explorer_doctrine_archivee, explorer_doctrine_ouverte or explorer_sources_francaises, which overlap on the same doctrine material.

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, mandatory workflow: pick an operation, then call decrire_outil with that operation name to obtain the exact contract before invoking. That is clear procedural context an agent would otherwise have to guess. It stops short of saying when to prefer this tool over the overlapping explorer_* siblings, so no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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