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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds the grounding intent (results are used to cite real pages) but says nothing about pagination, ranking, result freshness, or what 'brief' vs 'full' actually changes in behavior.

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 short sentences, no filler, each carrying a distinct payload: what it searches, when to invoke it, and which parameter value to prefer. Purpose is front-loaded ahead of the usage and parameter hints.

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?

With 4 well-documented parameters, an output schema already present, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies enough to call the tool correctly for the common case. It falls short only on routing versus sibling search tools and on the brief/full behavioral difference.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The sentence 'Préfère content_type=article ou piece_hub' does add a real decision hint for the content_type enum that the schema cannot express, but it is a single narrow preference and leaves query phrasing and detail_level trade-offs unaddressed.

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 scope: searching the user's hubs, articles and looks. An agent can tell it is a content-retrieval tool, but it never names the closest siblings (shopping_search, fetch, get_piece_hub) so the boundary with those is left to inference.

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?

Gives one clear usage trigger — call it before answering in order to cite real ScoreLook pages — which is a genuine when-to-use signal. It offers no when-not-to-use and no comparison with sibling search/retrieval tools, so the agent must still guess when shopping_search or fetch is the better call.

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