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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and destructiveHint: false, and the description's 'Recommande' is consistent with a read-only operation. The description adds the notion of user context/profile but does not disclose any additional behavioral details like return format, ordering, or limitations. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, clear sentence that communicates the core functionality without waste. It is well-structured, front-loads the action and resource, and avoids extraneous detail.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and input condition, but it omits the 'limit' parameter and does not describe what the output looks like (e.g., a list of episodes). This leaves some ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool, 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?

Schema coverage is 50%: the 'context' parameter has a description in the schema, but 'limit' has none. The tool description repeats the context examples from the schema but does not explain the meaning or effect of 'limit' (e.g., maximum number of recommendations). This leaves a key parameter underspecified, failing to compensate for the schema's gap.

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 tool recommends Soluble episodes based on user context or profile, giving concrete examples (parent, teacher, activist, company). It uses a specific verb 'Recommande' and identifies the resource, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like find_solutions_for_need or search_solutions_concretes, though the profile-based recommendation angle is implied.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a user context or profile is known (e.g., parent, teacher, activist, company). It implies a recommendation use case rather than a general search. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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