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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the operation is read-only and public, but it omits important behavior such as result ordering, pagination, default item count, whether the feed includes mixed event types, or any authentication expectations.

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 concise sentence with no filler, and the key verb and resource are front-loaded. However, the brevity edges into under-specification, so it is not maximally effective despite being short.

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 feed tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete: an agent cannot know what node types the feed contains, how results are sorted, what the default limit is, or how to interpret the response. The simple optional parameter reduces complexity, but key operational context is missing.

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 0%, and the description never mentions the 'limit' parameter. It adds no meaning about default values, how the limit affects results, or what happens when the parameter is omitted, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the bare schema constraints.

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 clearly states the verb 'Lire' (read) and the resource 'flux public récent' (recent public feed), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific entities like proposals, topics, or votes. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state what is excluded, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as list_proposals, list_topics, or list_elections. The phrase only implies that it is for reading recent public activity, with no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools.

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