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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it specifies that searches are performed locally, that the penal filter is intentionally broad, and that scope can be widened to the whole catalog or narrowed to a NOR number. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 description is two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and includes only relevant scoping information. Every sentence earns its place and there is no repetition or filler.

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?

Given five unannotated parameters, no schema descriptions, and no explicit guidance on combining requete, nor, and perimetre, the description is not complete enough for reliably correct invocation. The output schema covers return shape, but search construction and pagination semantics remain underspecified.

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 hints at two concepts: NOR numbers and the penal versus full-catalog perimeter. It does not explain requete, limite, offset, or how parameters combine, leaving the agent to infer most parameter semantics from parameter names alone.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Recherche localement les notices de toutes les circulaires publiées en ligne') and the specific resource scope (criminal circulars in the Bulletin officiel du ministère de la Justice). It also explains the broad penal filter and the ability to search the full catalog or by NOR, which adds useful nuance. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like decrire_etat_corpus or verifier_citation.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when searching for penal circulars, the full catalog, or by NOR number. It gives a sense of scope but provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of sibling alternatives, leaving some routing decisions to inference.

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