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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent profile, so the bar is lower. The description goes well beyond them by disclosing that coverage is limited to the 20 most recent notices, that a no-match is not evidence of product safety (false-negative risk), and that retrieved text should be treated as data rather than instructions — a genuine prompt-injection warning.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then caveats. No redundant restatement of the name or filler, and every sentence carries actionable information.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, matching semantics, and result-interpretation limits well. It stops short of describing the shape of returned notices, which is acceptable given the absence of an output schema but leaves a small 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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does clarify that matching is literal (not semantic/fuzzy) and that the 'latest 20' framing relates to the limit cap, but the limit minimum/maximum and the 80-character query bound are left entirely to the schema.

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?

Specific verb (Search) plus resource (French RappelConso notices) with explicit scope (latest 20) and matching mode (literal text). An agent can immediately distinguish this from sibling read tools like get_record or catalog without opening either schema.

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 implies when to use it (quick literal-text lookup over a bounded recent window) and adds an important interpretation caveat about partial coverage. However, it never names an alternative for historical or exhaustive searches, nor states explicit when-not conditions, so routing guidance is only implied.

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