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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the claim 'Faits vérifiés' (verified facts), which is useful context about content reliability. However, it doesn't disclose return format, whether the output is a static summary, or any limits. It adds some value beyond annotations but not rich behavioral context.

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 efficient sentence with topics clearly front-loaded and zero filler. It earns its place by enumerating the law's coverage. Minor deduction for lacking a clear verb, which makes it read more like a tagline than a functional statement, but there is no waste.

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 zero-parameter, read-only fact tool, the description lists the covered topics adequately. However, the functional nature is ambiguous—it never states what the agent receives or should relay to the user (a summary, a fact sheet, a citation). Since there is no output schema to compensate, this gap matters and keeps it from being complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema needs no description support; per the baseline, 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist. The description correctly does not attempt to document nonexistent parameters. Nothing is missing here.

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 names the specific resource (Loi Lemoine 2026) and lists its key topics (delegation, annual termination, equivalent guarantees, health questionnaire), which distinguishes it from siblings. However, it lacks an explicit action verb—there's no 'returns', 'explains', or 'provides'—so the description reads like a content summary rather than a functional spec. An agent can infer it's an information-retrieval tool but only indirectly.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like chercher_contenu (search content) or comparer_delegation_assurance (compare delegation). An agent cannot tell whether to pick this over chercher_contenu when a user asks about the law. The description provides no exclusions, conditions, or alternative names.

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