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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that references are clickable and dated when detectable, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise, with two sentences and the main action front-loaded. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because of the cryptic 'trois relations affirmation-source structurantes' wording and the 'l0g' typo, which force extra parsing effort.

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?

With a complete input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description does not need to re-explain parameters or return structure. It provides enough orientation for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and main filters, though the ambiguous relationship phrase and typo leave some room for improvement.

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 8 parameters already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description only names three filter dimensions and adds no extra constraints, defaults, or interplay between parameters, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Interroge') and identifies the resource (claim-source relations) plus the main filter dimensions (article, claim type, text) and output (clickable references). It is mostly clear, but the phrase 'trois relations affirmation-source structurantes' and the apparent typo 'l0g' keep it from being fully unambiguous.

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 description explicitly names the key filtering contexts: article, claim type, and text, which gives an agent a clear sense of when to call this tool. It does not mention when not to use it or point to sibling alternatives, so it falls 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.