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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: results are ranked and include code, number, section path, and excerpt, and quoting enables exact phrase matching. It does not discuss rate limits or coverage gaps, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Two tightly written sentences front-load the core purpose, then add scope, return shape, and search semantics. The French example queries are illustrative rather than redundant, and nothing is wasted.

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 four parameters at 100% schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining pieces an agent needs: corpus scope, rank/return format, and phrase-matching behavior. No output schema is needed because the return shape is described.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters including code forms, date semantics, limit range, and query phrasing. The description repeats the optional `code` restriction and the phrase-quoting behavior rather than adding new syntax or format details. 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?

States a specific verb and resource (full-text search across in-force articles of French codes), names the source corpus (DILA LEGI consolidated text), and gives concrete example queries. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like fr_code_article or fr_code_toc, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 use case is explicit: 'find which article of French law deals with a subject,' with example subject queries. It also notes that `code` can restrict scope. No when-not guidance or explicit routing to sibling tools is provided.

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