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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behaviors: it returns *probable* obligations plus a verification question and the tool to read the source text, and warns this is 'information juridique, pas certification'. It does not state the read-only nature or other safety traits, but the reliability caveat is genuinely valuable.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then documents each parameter and the follow-up instruction. The parenthetical domain list earns its place by scoping coverage, though the parameter documentation slightly muddles the structure by interleaving schema semantics into the description.

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 2-param analysis tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, both parameters, the return nature (though an output schema exists) and the critical verification caveat. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only the domain-key specifics left under-defined.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: 'description' is explained with concrete content to include (activité, public, données, paiement, prestataires, IA) and 'domaines' is described as forced, comma-separated keys. The 'clés à forcer' phrase is a bit vague about which keys are valid, leaving a small gap.

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+resource ('Pré-analyse de conformité d'un projet') with an explicit scope (France/UE, RGPD, cookies, IA, DSA, etc.). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling lookup tools (rechercher_*, lire_*) because it is the pre-analysis entry point.

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?

Prescribes the workflow ('Lire ensuite chaque texte avant de conclure'), routing the agent to lire_texte/lire_article as follow-ups. It gives clear context for when to use it, but never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives or states when-not to use it.

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