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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds behavioral context by explaining that the tool finds/list existing episodes with Junior versions. It also discloses the expectation of short keyword extraction and the empty-query behavior, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is moderately sized but well-structured: it leads with the main action, then target audience, then an 'IMPORTANT' note with specific usage instructions. Every sentence contributes value, though it is slightly verbose with the repeated audience enumeration.

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/list tool with no output schema, the description explains what it finds (episodes with Junior versions) and how to query it effectively. It does not describe the return format, but given the simplicity and the read-only annotation, this is acceptable. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 only 50% (query has a description, limit does not). The description reinforces query semantics by repeating the 1-3 keyword guidance and the 'leave empty' option, which adds value. However, it does not clarify the 'limit' parameter's meaning or default behavior, leaving a gap. Coverage is partially compensated but not fully.

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 uses a specific verb ('Trouve') and resource ('épisodes Soluble(s) en version Junior'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that search for solutions or actions. It defines what 'version Junior' means, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 description explicitly states when to use this tool: for parents, teachers, youth animators, or to vulgarize a subject for children, and even says 'c'est cet outil qu'il faut utiliser' for pedagogical content for 6-12 year olds. It also gives specific input guidance (extract 1-3 keywords, leave query empty to list all), which is actionable and clear.

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