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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the entry contains raw dataset columns with French field names (Titre, Prénom, Coordonnées), telling the agent what kind of data comes back.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and a compact parenthetical illustrating the payload. No filler, though the trailing ellipsis leaves the field list open-ended rather than fully specifying.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation, the lookup key, and the shape of the returned content. Only the origin/format of entry_id is left unstated.

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 0% and the single parameter entry_id is undocumented in the schema, so the description must carry it. It only says 'by id', which names the key but gives no type, format, or where the id originates, leaving a real gap.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (index entry) with the lookup key (id), which distinguishes it from the sibling search_index by retrieval mode. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by id' — an agent infers this is the follow-up call when it already has an entry_id. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or reference to search_index as the way to obtain an id first.

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