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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds real context beyond that: it discloses the return shape ('chaque résultat comprend une référence vers le détail public et son lien') and the constraint that only content actually published in the requested language is returned — useful given there is no output schema.

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 tight sentences with the resource scope front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though the second sentence shifts abruptly from corpus scope to return format rather than proceeding in a single logical thread.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description correctly notes the return payload (a public-detail reference plus link), which is genuinely helpful. However, with five completely undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage and no required fields, an agent is left guessing about filtering behavior; the definition is minimally viable rather than complete.

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% across five parameters, so the description must carry the load and largely does not. 'Dans la langue demandée' loosely implies the langue enum parameter, but limit, query, commune and categorie receive no explanation of format, matching semantics or interaction (e.g., whether commune/categorie pre-filter the search).

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 states a specific verb (rechercher/contenus publiés) and enumerates the resource types covered: FAQ, sources, méthode, offres et conditions publiques. That is clear enough to distinguish it from the 'lire_*' detail tools, but it never names or contrasts against the many sibling 'rechercher_*' tools, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named despite nine siblings (chercher_sorties, rechercher_articles_carnet, rechercher_lieux, etc.). The phrase 'contenus réellement publiés dans la langue demandée' vaguely scopes the corpus but does not tell an agent when to prefer this over a sibling.

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