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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the search scope, French-only language, acte restriction, and supported query operators. It does not mention read-only safety, result ordering, pagination behavior, or the role of the limite parameter, so significant behavioral context is missing.

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 compact, front-loaded, and structured into search scope, acte restriction, and query syntax. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no wasted text.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, scope, and query syntax well, but for a 3-parameter tool it omits any explanation of limite and does not differentiate usage from sibling search tools, leaving enough gaps that an agent might need to guess about result limiting.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for requete (phrase exacte, AND, OR, NOT, prefixe*) and for acte (examples RGPD, 32022R2065), but it never explains the limite parameter at all, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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 a full-text search verb over a specific resource set (règlements, directives, traités, Charte) and language (français). It is distinguishable from siblings like rechercher_loi or rechercher_jurisprudence_ue by the EU-law scope, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 how to restrict by a specific acte and gives query syntax, which implies use for EU legal text search. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as rechercher_loi, rechercher_jurisprudence_ue, or lire_texte_ue, leaving comparison to inference.

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