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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose valuable behavior: default base is legi, and date returns the version in force at that date (default today), which is a meaningful temporal-snapshot trait. It says nothing about result volume, pagination, behavior of the limite parameter, or what happens on malformed query syntax.

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?

Terse, front-loaded with the purpose before the parameter notes, and free of filler. The fragment style ("base : …", "code : …") is efficient, though the syntax sentence is packed densely enough to require careful reading.

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 described, and the search-syntax and date-versioning rules are genuinely useful. Still, for a 5-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, leaving limite unexplained and giving no sibling routing is a noticeable gap.

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 explains three of five parameters well: base (with all accepted values and the default), code (restriction to a code/text or "IDCC 1486"), and date (AAAA-MM-JJ with version-in-force semantics). The required requete is only implied by the opening sentence, and limite (default 10) is never mentioned.

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 ("Recherche plein texte dans les articles") and enumerates the corpora searched (codes, lois, décrets, conventions collectives, Journal officiel). This implicitly separates it from the jurisprudence/UE search siblings, but no sibling is ever named, so the differentiation must be inferred.

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 base values and defaults imply when to pick legi/kali/jorf/tout, which is real routing guidance, but the description never states when to use this tool rather than rechercher_jurisprudence or lire_article, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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