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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: the BM25 ranking, the note that these funds were not served before 10 September 2026, and the explicit caveat that an opinion or public rapporteur conclusion does not bind the judge. It also explains how the returned id maps to get_doctrine_document, going well beyond the annotation.

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 longer than average but well structured with headings (sources, warning, Args, Returns). It front-loads the purpose and source list, then the caveat, then parameters. A few sentences could be trimmed (e.g., repeating document counts), but every section carries useful information, so it earns a 4.

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?

The description includes an explicit return format with field names, explains the id linkage to get_doctrine_document, documents query syntax, sources, limit, and offset. Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema in the definition, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is 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?

Although the schema has 0% description coverage, the description's Args section fully documents each parameter: query with FTS5 syntax, source with the five allowed values, limit with a max of 100, and offset for pagination. This compensates completely for the sparse schema, giving the agent everything needed to construct valid calls.

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 it is a full-text search over administrative doctrine and opinions, enumerates the five distinct sources (cada, ddd, ariane_crp, bofip, ctn) with document counts, and explicitly distinguishes itself from court decisions by warning 'Ce ne sont PAS des décisions de justice'. This precise scope separates it from sibling search tools like search_admin or search_ce.

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 provides strong when-to-use guidance by listing exactly what content is included and, crucially, what is not (court decisions). It also details the available source filters and the query syntax (FTS5: AND/OR/NOT, exact phrases, wildcards), so an agent knows precisely when to invoke this tool instead of alternatives.

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