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

Annotations already confirm readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description goes further by disclosing the coverage limitation (only issues whose summary is held), the empty-result semantics, and the country_not_available behavior for MA and TN — behavioral context the annotations do not carry. The main gap is no mention of pagination behavior such as default page size beyond what parameters already say.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and follows with scope constraints and usage notes. It is appropriately sized and each sentence serves a purpose, though the final country-availability sentence is somewhat dense and could be split for readability.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (year, issue number, section heading, title, issue page and PDF links), the pagination metadata, coverage limitations, and country availability. An agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret empty or errored results.

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 100%, so all six parameters are well documented in the schema itself. The description adds minor value by clarifying that the optional year restriction exists and that meta.total gives the match count, but does not meaningfully extend the parameter documentation. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a specific verb and resource — searching the official titles in the Journal Officiel summaries — and enumerates the exact content types covered (laws, ordinances, decrees, orders, notices). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_jo_issue or list_jo_issues, which handle issues rather than title search.

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?

It explicitly states the use case (find when and where a text was published), warns that an empty result does not prove a text does not exist because only held summaries are searched, and notes the Algeria-only limitation with country_not_available for Morocco and Tunisia. These are concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions that no sibling provides.

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