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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase 'déclarées par leurs équipes' adds genuine value by signalling that records are self-declared and thus unverified in quality, but nothing is said about result limits, pagination, or ordering.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding and the domain stated up front. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 discovery tool with three optional filters and no output schema, the description should signal what a call returns and that results are filterable and capped. Neither the listing behaviour nor the existence of search/platform filters is conveyed, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema.

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%, including the platform enum and the 1–25 bound on 'limite', so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no meaning beyond it – it never mentions that recherche or plateforme filtering exists.

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 identifies the resource ('Communautés de roleplay GTA sur console') but never states the action – no verb indicating that it lists or returns them. It also does not distinguish this from sibling tools such as chercher_serveurs or meilleurs_serveurs, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no mention of exclusions, and no reference to any alternative tool. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is a listing endpoint rather than a search or detail lookup.

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