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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the corpus size and provenance (656 entries, Crescendo Magazine), the temporal span, the editorial emphasis on women/Belgian/under-recognized composers, and the fields returned since no output schema exists.

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 sentences, zero waste: the first front-loads the what/scope, the second the invocation rule, and the third the return shape. Dense but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 6-parameter, all-optional search with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (name, dates, nationality, period, notoriety, record URL) and stating the corpus scope. It could still say more about how 'texte' searches across name/biography/works, which is left to the schema alone.

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 67% and the description adds only a collective statement that all criteria are optional and combinable, not per-parameter meaning. It does not clarify 'limite', 'periode' beyond the self-describing enum, or how 'texte' interacts with the other filters, so it sits at the baseline for partial coverage.

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 (Recherche) and resource (compositeurs) and scopes it precisely: a corpus of 656 composers from Pauline/Crescendo Magazine, Medieval to contemporary, with emphasis on women composers and Belgian scenes. It is clearly a search tool, but it never names the sibling fiche_compositeur to distinguish lookup-by-detail from 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?

"Tous les critères sont facultatifs et combinables" tells the agent filters can be combined freely, which is useful invocation context. However, it gives no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no exclusions, so usage is only implied.

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