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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that — full pseudonymised text, structural zones expressed as character offsets into `text`, and best-effort (explicitly caveated) citation linking. It omits size/truncation behavior, rate limits, and failure modes for bad ids.

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?

A single sentence, but front-loaded with the core action before the dense enumeration of returned content, which is the right ordering. The middle clause listing structural zones is long, though each item is informative rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape, and it does so thoroughly (text, zones, visa/cited_articles, related decisions, files). Remaining gaps are minor: no mention of response size, truncation, or error behavior for invalid ids.

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 100%, so both `id` and `resolve_references` are already documented, including the default-false behavior of the latter. The description only restates the id's provenance, adding little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Read one French judicial decision by id') with explicit provenance of the id ('from fr_judilibre_search'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling search tool. An agent immediately knows this is the single-record fetch, not a search.

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 parenthetical '(from fr_judilibre_search)' implicitly routes the agent: search first with fr_judilibre_search, then read here. It does not spell out when not to use it (e.g. bulk retrieval) or what happens for unknown ids, so it falls short of full when/when-not framing.

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