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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context about the content universe and the returned fields (titre, URL, résumé, date), though it does not discuss pagination or result limits beyond the 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core verb and scope, then adds a useful next-step sentence. It is dense but every sentence serves a purpose, with no filler.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the content universe, return fields, and follow-up actions well. The main gap is that it omits behavior for the 'type' and 'limite' parameters, which matters given the low schema coverage.

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 only 33%: only 'requete' has a schema description. The description does not explain the 'type' filter or the 'limite' parameter at all, so it does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. It implies that articles and fiches métier exist, but does not connect this to the 'type' enum.

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 uses a specific verb ('Cherche') and clearly identifies the resource: published Partner Construction content, split into articles and fiches métier. It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling read tools by directing the agent to lire_article or lire_fiche_metier for full content.

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 explicitly names the alternatives (lire_article, lire_fiche_metier) and states the condition for using them: when the full content is needed. The search-first/read-later workflow is clear without inference.

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