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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent; the description adds pagination behavior (offset/length, nextOffset) and section shortcuts beyond that. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four sentences, tightly focused: purpose, pagination, section shortcuts, and alternative resource. The primary action is front-loaded and each sentence adds distinct value, with no 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?

For a 7-parameter tool with a full output schema, the description covers purpose, pagination, section selection, and the alternative full-object resource. The only small gap is that it doesn't explain how cursor/nextCursor relates to nextOffset, but that is documented in 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 100%, but the description enriches the section parameter by mapping tail to conclusion/limitations/methodology and sources to sources, and clarifies that offset/length drive the returned segment. It doesn't repeat schema details, so it adds meaning beyond the parameter descriptions.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('Renvoie'), a concrete resource (analysis or guide l0g), and the retrieval key (slug). The text-returning behavior distinguishes it from the sibling list/search tools, so an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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 gives clear usage context: use section=tail or section=sources for fast access to conclusion, limitations, methodology, and sources, and mentions the l0g://articles/{slug} alternative for full-object reads. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_content or list_recent_analyses, so it misses the 'when-not-to-use' part.

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