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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only conveys that this is a read of 'full text'. It does not disclose the truncation behavior implied by max_caracteres (default 20000), what happens when the identifier is invalid, or any permission/auth requirements.

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 zero waste that puts the verb and resource first and the identifier format parenthetically. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves needed behavioral detail unstated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, given no annotations and an undocumented max_caracteres that governs truncation, the definition is only minimally complete for correctly invoking and interpreting the tool.

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. It meaningfully documents the identifier format (JURITEXT/CONSTEXT/CNILTEXT), which adds real value beyond the schema, but it says nothing about max_caracteres, which controls response truncation — a notable gap for a tool returning large full texts.

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 (lire/read) and resource (décision) and clarifies that it returns full text from an identifier. The identifier prefix examples (JURITEXT, CONSTEXT, CNILTEXT) make the scope precise. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like rechercher_jurisprudence or lire_texte, so it falls short of a 5.

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 purpose implies usage (fetch a decision's full text when you have its ID), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of pairing it with rechercher_jurisprudence to obtain IDs first, and no exclusions versus lire_texte or analyser_conformite.

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