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 goes beyond that by specifying the shape of the result (path in FR and EN, the role that can change it, its default value, the vendor help page), which is valuable since no output schema 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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and then the returned fields; every clause carries information. Slightly long, but nothing is redundant given the absence of an output schema.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and the annotated safety profile covers mutation behavior. Remaining gaps are minor (matching behavior, whether results are ranked), so an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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%, so all three parameters (mot, outil, limite) are already documented in the schema with examples and a default. The description adds no syntax, matching, or pagination detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Cherche) plus resource (un réglage dans les consoles d'administration) with concrete examples of the editors covered (Microsoft 365, Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Mistral). It also enumerates what is returned, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool produces versus the unrelated siblings.

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 scope (admin consoles of editors) implies when the tool applies, and the parameters suggest a lookup-by-keyword workflow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternative tools or the conditions that would route elsewhere.

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