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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool lists public topics and their status, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not disclose the response format, pagination, authentication requirements (beyond 'public' implying none), or any other behavioral detail. For a simple list tool this is acceptable but not thorough.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the function without any fluff or redundancy. It is efficient and earns its place.

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 parameterless list operation, this description is fully sufficient. An agent can invoke it without any additional information, and the scope ('public') and content ('status') are clear. No output schema is present, but the description implies what will be returned.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is complete by definition. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and there is no gap to compensate for.

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 specifies a clear action ('Lister' = list), a specific resource ('thèmes' = topics), and qualifies it as 'public' while also indicating the output includes 'statut' (status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_topic (which creates) and list_proposals (which lists a different resource).

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 description implicitly makes the use case obvious: list topics. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_proposals or list_elections, nor does it state any exclusions. The context is clear but not explicit.

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