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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add the meaningful trait that the entire text is returned ('texte intégral'), implying no truncation or summarization, but says nothing about error behavior for an unknown id, response size, or partial/absent notes.

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 front-loaded sentence with the return behavior stated first and the id provenance in a compact parenthetical. Nothing is redundant and no sentence 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (full note text), what the parameter is, and where to get it. Only edge-case behavior for invalid or missing ids is left unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns credit by explaining the provenance of id (returned by search_corpus) and giving a concrete example format ('souverainete-cognitive'), which clarifies the slug convention beyond the schema's terse 'Identifiant de la note (slug)'.

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 names a specific verb and resource — 'Renvoie le texte intégral d'une note' — and scopes it to Pierre-Jean Tribot's corpus. It clearly distinguishes this retrieval tool from the sibling search_corpus by positioning itself as the follow-up call that fetches a single note's full text.

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 explicit workflow context: the id comes from the 'champ id renvoyé par search_corpus', which tells an agent both when and how to use this tool. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g. when to prefer get_architecture_record instead), so it is clear but not fully comparative.

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