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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does clarify the scope of the return ('fiche et plan', i.e. metadata and structure, not the full text) and the accepted identifier families, but says nothing about behavior on an unknown or ambiguous name, whether matching is exact or fuzzy, or permissions.

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 sentence that front-loads the returned value and then the accepted input forms, with no filler. Slightly terse for non-French-legal readers, but every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema (so return structure needn't be described) and no annotations, the description covers purpose and all input formats. The remaining gap is failure/ambiguity behavior when a name is given.

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% — 'identifiant_ou_nom' has no description at all — so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates four valid identifier forms plus a concrete example ('Code de la consommation'). It stops short of saying whether names must be exact or how ambiguity is resolved.

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 resource (a legal 'texte') and what is returned ('fiche et plan'), which separates it from lire_article (an article) and lire_decision (a court decision). The verb is implicit in the noun phrase 'Fiche et plan' rather than stated, so it falls short of a fully explicit verb+resource statement.

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?

Usage is only implied: by enumerating the accepted identifiers (LEGITEXT/JORFTEXT, NOR, IDCC, or a code name) the description signals when this tool is applicable. It never states when to use it instead of rechercher_loi (to find a text) or lire_article (to read a specific article), and offers no exclusions.

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