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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the global search scope and the keyword constraint, which is useful context but does not disclose further behavioral details like result count or pagination. This is consistent with the TDQS 4.3 baseline.

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: a single action phrase plus an important usage note. Every sentence earns its place, and the critical instruction is clearly highlighted with 'IMPORTANT'. No waste or redundancy.

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 one-parameter search tool with read-only annotations, the description covers the purpose, usage scope, and parameter constraints. It lacks explicit return format or pagination details, but given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, it is sufficiently 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 schema already covers the parameter fully with description '1 à 3 mots-clés courts (ex: ...)'. The tool description repeats this and adds the rationale ('ne jamais envoyer une phrase complète'), but the added value over the schema is minimal, justifying the baseline 3.

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 performs a global search in titles and transcriptions of solutions, with a specific verb ('Recherche') and resource ('titres et transcriptions'). It provides examples and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on this search scope rather than recommendation or need-based lookup.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: use 1–3 short keywords, never a full sentence, with examples. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives, but the contextual instruction is strong and directly improves invocation correctness.

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