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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that the tool returns 'uniquement' (only) concrete actions in 'format checklist' (checklist format), which clarifies output shape and filtering behavior. It does not discuss edge cases, pagination, or limit behavior, but the added value is meaningful.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence immediately states the action and output format, and the second sentence adds a clear use case. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only extraction tool with one required parameter, the description covers the purpose, output format, and intended use case, making it largely complete. However, it omits any clarification of how `limit` affects results and what the checklist items look like (e.g., are they short phrases, titles, etc.), so it is not fully 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?

The description does not mention or explain the `query` or `limit` parameters. The input schema describes `query` well (1 to 3 short keywords with examples), but `limit` has no description, only a default value. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented `limit` parameter but does not, leaving its meaning ambiguous.

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 clearly states the action: 'Extrait uniquement la liste des actions concrètes liées à un sujet' (extracts only the list of concrete actions related to a topic), identifies the output format (checklist), and gives a specific use case ('créer des guides pratiques'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling solution-search tools by focusing specifically on concrete actions rather than solutions or opinions.

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 phrase 'Idéal pour créer des guides pratiques' provides clear contextual guidance on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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