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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the record is returned only 'après vérification de la publication actuelle' (i.e., unpublished/stale keys may not resolve) and the response carries an NLocale link, original sources, and distinct retrieval/validation/identity/visit field groups.

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, reasonably front-loaded with the purpose, but the trailing clause listing 'champs distincts pour la récupération, la validation documentaire, l'identité et la visite' is vague jargon that consumes space without clarifying the response.

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 no output schema, the description partially compensates by sketching the response contents, and annotations cover safety. However, for a tool whose only input is a constrained key plus a language, the absence of any parameter semantics leaves the definition only minimally viable.

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%, so the description carries the burden, yet it never explains the key parameter's prefixed format (event|business|municipality|place|content) or the langue enum/default. It only hints that the key originates from a search, which is marginal compensation for two undocumented parameters.

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 conveys that it returns factual details for a key produced by a search, and the title supplies the verb (Lire). It does not state the purpose with a clean verb+resource phrasing ('Détails factuels de la clé' is nominal and vague) and never explicitly positions itself as the detail-read counterpart to the chercher/rechercher siblings, though that is inferable from 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?

Saying the key is 'retournée par une recherche' implies the prerequisite that this tool follows a search, which is the main routing hint. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative, so the guidance stays at the implied level.

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