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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: the tool can return a partial view instead of the whole file, so callers need not fear a large payload. It does not describe the shape or size of each return mode, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is exposed, then the cost-saving rationale. There is no filler, though the second sentence is somewhat vague about what 'résumé' concretely contains.

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?

Given 2 fully documented parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description supplies enough for an agent to call this correctly. The only residual gap is the French-only prose in an otherwise English toolset, and the unexplained 'l0g' surface name.

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% and both parameters carry their own French descriptions, including the enum semantics and the path example. The description only reinforces the 'summary suffices' idea and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. 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 names a specific resource — the public OpenAPI contract of the Agent Surface — and states what the tool enables (discovering paths, methods and schemas). It is clearly distinguishable from every sibling, none of which expose API contracts. It stops short of a 5 because 'Expose' is a generic verb and the object 'Agent Surface l0g' is opaque without prior context.

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 second sentence implies the intended use — discovery of paths/methods/schemas — and hints at a cheap-first strategy ('sans récupérer tout le fichier si un résumé suffit'). However, it never states when-not to use it, nor explicitly routes the agent between modes (summary vs path vs full) beyond what the enum already documents.

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