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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that matching is exact ('mot pour mot'), that references and citations are aligned by rank ('de même rang'), and that INTROUVABLE/ABSENTE results block citation. However it never explains what 'exists' means (which sources are checked) or how the date parameter affects behavior, leaving real gaps.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the example list, while long, earns its place by pinning down accepted reference formats. The interdiction rule closes cleanly. Slightly dense but free of filler.

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 needn't be explained. Yet for a 3-parameter verification tool the description leaves the date parameter and the scope of existence-checking (which databases/treatments) undefined, so an agent calling it has unresolved questions beyond the schema.

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 references thoroughly with seven format examples and clarifies citations as word-for-word excerpts matched to the reference of the same rank — a meaningful relationship cue. But the third parameter, date, is entirely 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Contrôle que chaque référence existe avant de la citer'. The concrete example formats (Code civil, LEGIARTI, ECLI, C-131/12) make the domain unambiguous. It reads as a verification tool distinct from the search/read/list siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself against them.

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?

'avant de la citer' gives a clear trigger (use before emitting a citation) and the rule 'Toute ligne INTROUVABLE ou citation ABSENTE interdit la citation' defines the consequence. It does not name alternatives or state exclusions, keeping it short of a 5.

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