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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds value by enumerating what comes back (l'essentiel, points clés, texte, FAQ, URL, date) in Markdown, which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the action and return value, then tacks on the slug provenance. No filler, though the parameter hint is buried at the end rather than surfaced prominently.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output shape, and how to obtain the input. The main remaining gap is failure behavior for an unknown slug, which is minor.

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% and the single 'slug' parameter has no schema description, so the description carries the burden. It explains the slug's provenance ("vient de rechercher"), which is the key operational detail an agent needs; format specifics are still absent.

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 and resource ("Renvoie un article publié de Partner Construction") plus the output format (Markdown) and the sections returned. It is distinguishable from lire_fiche_metier by the resource type, though that sibling is 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?

The closing clause "Le slug vient de rechercher" implicitly tells the agent this tool must be preceded by the search tool, which is useful workflow context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no contrast with lire_fiche_metier.

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