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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the search targets a public index, which usefully implies no authentication, but it does not disclose result shape, pagination, or how the limite parameter affects 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It communicates the resource, the action, and the topic scope efficiently.

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 simple public search tool with read-only annotations, the core scope is mostly clear. However, with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the agent is left guessing about return format, limite semantics, and edge cases like empty results.

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 description does not explain either parameter. 'requete' and 'limite' are inferable from their names and the search context, but no format, defaults, examples, or constraints are provided, so the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 specific verb ('Recherche') on a specific resource ('l'index public des pages de ScoreProtect.fr') and narrows scope with content categories. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like simuler_cout_assurance_emprunteur or statut_produits.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the siblings, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no mention of alternatives. The 'index public' phrase gives some context but does not help an agent choose between tools.

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