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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds real behavioral context: evidence is only 'verified' under a live human decision tied to the exact artifact, 'stale_source' demands re-verification, and the returned scores are explicitly not compatibility probabilities. That last caveat directly prevents a common misuse, which is genuine value beyond the structured fields.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the state semantics and the score caveat each earn their place. Minor cost: dense jargon and a language switch (French description among English siblings) slightly slows parsing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover safety. What remains missing is a usable definition of the two inputs and of the pilot/'preuves publiables' domain, so an agent knows what it gets back but not precisely what to pass in.

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 0% for two parameters, so the description carries the burden; it names both ('pièce/appareil') and frames them as the pair whose evidence is retrieved, which does add meaning over the bare strings. But it gives no indication of expected format (the schema's pattern, length limits) or whether these are part numbers, SKUs, or free text, so it only partially compensates.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: retrieve the publishable part/appliance evidence for a given pair. The domain term 'pilote' (pilot) is opaque and left unexplained, but no sibling tool overlaps with this lookup, so an agent can still tell what the tool is for and that it is not a product/order/payment operation.

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?

It spells out the meaning of result states ('verified' requires an active human decision bound to the exact evidence/SHA/page/marker; 'stale_source' forces re-verification), which implicitly tells the agent how to act on results. However, it never says when to call this tool versus doing something else, nor what preconditions exist for the caller.

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