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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the search targets a 'public index', implying no auth needed, but it does not disclose behavior like result format, pagination, or handling of the 'limite' parameter. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and this adds a little value, so a 3 is fair.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and content scope, making it highly concise and easy to scan.

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 tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what the search returns, how 'limite' affects results, or any special behavior. An agent could call it correctly but may not know how to interpret results or set parameters appropriately, so a 2 is appropriate.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain what 'requete' or 'limite' mean. The agent must infer that 'requete' is the search term and 'limite' is a result limit, which is guessable but not explicit. This is a significant gap, so a 2 is given.

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 clearly states the verb (Recherche) and resource (index public des pages de ScoreInvest.fr), and lists content types (outils, guides, articles). It distinguishes from sibling tools implicitly, as none of the siblings are search-related, but it does not name an alternative explicitly, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for searching site content, but it does not state conditions or mention sibling tools. This is minimal guidance, so a 3 is appropriate.

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