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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond annotations: only ads 'en cours' (currently active) are returned. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result volume relative to the limite cap.

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 zero redundancy and the scoping qualifier placed early. Its brevity is appropriate, though it tips toward under-specification rather than tight structure.

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 simple two-parameter, zero-required read tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the definition is minimally sufficient to call correctly. It nevertheless leaves the agent guessing about default page size, ordering, and whether an unfiltered call returns all posts or a sample, which a tool capping results at 25 should state.

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 the poste enum is self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about what the poste filter selects or how limite interacts with default behavior when omitted (both parameters are optional).

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 (recruitment ads) and adds a scope qualifier (currently open, published by server teams), which is slightly more informative than the title alone. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, and it gives no hint of how it differs from siblings such as fiche_serveur or 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?

No indication of when to call this versus the related server/community tools, no prerequisites, and no note on whether it is a browse-only listing or a search. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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