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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral depth by specifying local execution ('localement') and the normalization of case, spaces, and typographic signs. It also discloses the negative scope. These go beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and the limitation is stated immediately after. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered. The description gives purpose, normalization behavior, and limitations. It does not explain the 'longueur_contexte' parameter or its effect on the output, which is a minor gap, but for a simple verification tool the description is largely sufficient.

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 only 33% (only texte_source has a schema-level description). The tool description gives no explicit guidance on parameters 'citation' or 'longueur_contexte'. While the description implies what a citation/text is, it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, especially for the optional context-length parameter.

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 a specific verb ('Contrôle'), a clear resource ('si une citation figure dans un texte fourni'), and adds the normalization detail. It also clarifies boundaries by stating what it does not validate (authority, relevance, legal meaning). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like decrire_etat_corpus and rechercher_circulaires_penales.

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 provides clear context: it checks material presence, not semantic validity. The negative scope ('Ne valide ni l’autorité...') implicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state 'use this when...', leaving some inference to the agent.

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