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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the behavioral instruction to call before answering, which is beyond annotations. It also recommends content type preferences. No contradiction.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and key guidance. No fluff.

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 4 parameters and an output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly for the main use case, but lacks explanation of detail_level and limit. The recommendation on content_type is helpful. Overall adequate but not exhaustive.

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 descriptions cover 50% of parameters (limit and query). The description mentions content_type and suggests preferring article or piece_hub, adding guidance for that parameter, but does not explain detail_level or limit. This partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 states a clear verb ('cherche') and resource ('hubs, articles et looks'), and adds a use case ('citer de vraies pages ScoreLook'). It distinguishes from siblings like shopping_search by specifying content types, though it doesn't name alternatives explicitly. Thus it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 description explicitly instructs to call before responding to cite real pages, and recommends preferring content_type=article or piece_hub. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it doesn't mention when not to use alternatives.

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