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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behaviour that annotations cannot convey: results are limited to currently online servers, player counts reflect the last snapshot ('au dernier relevé') rather than live data, and the default ordering is by connected players. Data-freshness disclosure is exactly the kind of context that prevents misreading results; only missing piece is any note on paging beyond the limit parameter.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: what is searched, what the no-filter default is, and how filters behave. The result shape is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 seven optional parameters and no output schema, the description needs to say what comes back and how defaults work — it does both (server list with connected-player counts, ranked by players when unfiltered). A brief note on result cap or that only online servers are indexed would close the remaining gap, but nothing essential for calling the tool is absent.

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 100% and four parameters carry enums with self-explanatory values, so the schema does most of the work. The one genuine addition is 'Les filtres se combinent', which clarifies that filters are conjunctive rather than alternative — useful, but a single short clause. Baseline 3 fits with only marginal extra meaning supplied.

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 and resource ('Cherche parmi les serveurs FiveM ... francophones en ligne') and qualifies the domain (GTA V RP sur PC). It also says what comes back ('avec leurs joueurs connectés au dernier relevé'), so the agent knows the core object. It stops short of naming any sibling, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone how this differs from 'meilleurs_serveurs'.

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?

There is real usage signal: 'Sans critère, renvoie le classement en direct' tells the agent what happens with zero filters, and 'Les filtres se combinent' explains how to narrow results. However, no alternative tool is named and no when-not-to-use condition is given, even though 'meilleurs_serveurs' and 'fiche_serveur' sit adjacent to it. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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