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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction exists. The description adds useful context about what is returned (title, date, administration, subject, full content, source_url) and that the id must come from search_doctrine, but it does not disclose potential failure behavior or other operational traits.

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 two focused sentences: it front-loads the operation and identifier requirement, then lists the returned fields. Every element earns its place, and the inline examples improve clarity without adding length.

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 single-parameter read-only retrieval tool, this description is complete. It explains the id format and source, states what the tool returns, and relies on the output schema for detailed return structure. No critical information appears to be missing.

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?

The schema provides no description for doc_id (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining the required format (`source:doc_id`) and giving two concrete examples (`cada:20230456`, `ariane_crp:220`). This is exactly what an agent needs to construct a valid call.

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 operation (retrieve full text) and resource (doctrine document/avis) and specifies the identifier format with concrete examples. It references search_doctrine as the source of the id, which distinguishes it from the sibling decision and law retrieval tools.

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 explains that the id is the one produced by search_doctrine, giving clear context on when this tool is appropriate: after a doctrine search, to fetch the full document. It does not explicitly list exclusions versus alternatives, but the doctrine-specific scope makes the intended usage clear.

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