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

Annotations already establish safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description is free to add value: it discloses that results are ordered newest-first, that matching requires all words to appear, and that indexed text is French and lowercase. Pagination/result-count behavior is not mentioned, which is the only real gap.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: scope and searchable fields come first, then ordering and the optional date filter, then the intended use case. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers scope, fields indexed, language, ordering, date filtering, and intended use. Only result volume/pagination and the returned fiche shape are unaddressed, which is a minor gap given the annotations.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds genuinely new semantics beyond the schema: the indexed text is French and lowercase, with concrete vocabulary examples ("airbag", "incendie", "takata") that tell the agent what tokens will actually match.

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 (keyword search) and a precisely scoped resource (all RappelConso automobile fiches, with the exact fields searched), and it distinguishes itself from the model-specific sibling by framing its use case as cross-brand questions. An agent can tell this apart from fr_recalls_for_model or uk_recalls_search without opening any schema.

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?

It gives a clear positive trigger ("Use for cross-brand questions") with a concrete example, which implicitly routes model-specific queries to fr_recalls_for_model. However, it never explicitly names the alternative tool or states an exclusion, so the routing is inferred rather than declared.

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