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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety bar is covered. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful traits: only published (no drafts), no fallback to another language, and that returned slugs are the entry point to full articles. The no-language-substitution note is real behavioral context an agent needs.

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 short sentences, each carrying a distinct point (content, languages, exclusions, return access), with the core resource description front-loaded. No filler, though the language list slightly duplicates the visible enum.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description gives decent coverage of what is returned (real author, sources, dates, slugs). However, pagination behavior (limit/offset) and how results are ordered or bounded are absent, which is a gap for a search tool with four parameters.

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 must carry parameter meaning, yet it only addresses 'langue' (listing the six languages, which merely echoes the enum) and its no-substitution behavior. The 'query', 'limit', and 'offset' parameters - including pagination bounds - are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (published articles by NLocale - rencontres, coulisses, récits) and the search verb is carried by the tool name and title, so an agent can tell what it returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent siblings like rechercher_contenus_publics or lire_article_carnet, which an agent might confuse it with.

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?

'Aucun brouillon ni remplacement par une autre langue' implies scope (published only, strictly the requested language) but no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-to-use condition is given. Usage is inferable from the content description rather than stated.

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