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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It specifies the search is full-text and restricted to French, and gives date format and sort options, which adds useful operational context. However, it does not mention the result limit (limite), default behavior, or any access constraints, leaving some gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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-loaded with the core purpose, followed by compact fragments for date format, sort options, and next step. No wasted sentences, though the fragments could be slightly more structured.

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, and the workflow hint (read with lire_texte_ue) is helpful. Still, for a search tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the missing semantics for limite and requete leave the definition only adequate, not complete.

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 explain all five parameters. It covers du/au (format AAAA-MM-JJ) and tri (pertinence ou date), but omits limite entirely and says nothing about requete beyond it being the query. Two parameters remain undocumented by description or schema.

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 and resource: full-text search in EU Court of Justice and General Court judgments, in French. This distinguishes it from siblings like rechercher_jurisprudence (likely national) and rechercher_droit_ue, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Provides some context (full-text, French, date format, sort options) and a follow-up step via lire_texte_ue, but never states when to use this tool versus siblings such as rechercher_jurisprudence or rechercher_droit_ue. Usage remains implied.

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