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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the corpus size and language, and exactly which fields come back (identifiant, temps, calories, portions, lien), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of describing match semantics 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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the corpus description front-loaded and the return fields appended. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 read-only, 8-filter search with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and corpus scope, and annotations cover safety. It is nearly complete, missing only result ordering/pagination and whether "texte" matching is fuzzy or substring.

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% across all 8 parameters, including enum values and the 8-default/20-max behavior of "nombre". The description adds nothing about parameter behavior, so the 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?

The description gives a specific verb ("Cherche") plus a precise resource ("recettes de batch cooking publiées"), with scope qualifiers: a corpus of 300+ recipes, in French. That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from lire_recette (read one) or idees_session, though the siblings are never named explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this search versus recettes_avec, lire_recette or idees_session, and no mention that all filters are optional or how to narrow an over-broad query. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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