mcp-compteparticulier

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the output is the full article content, but it does not describe response format, error behavior, or any access constraints. For a simple read operation this is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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 with no filler: it states the action, the resource, the input, and the input's source. Every word 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 tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and a single sibling, the description covers purpose, input provenance, and output nature. It would be slightly stronger with more detail about the returned content structure, but the definition is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already fully documents the single 'slug' parameter with an example, so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 3. The description adds the useful provenance that the slug comes from search_articles, but does not add deeper parameter-level semantics.

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 uses a precise verb ('Retourne'), identifies the resource ('contenu complet d'un guide'), and specifies the lookup key (slug). Referencing search_articles as the source of the slug clearly differentiates this fetch operation from the search sibling.

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 establishes a clear workflow by stating the slug is 'obtenu via search_articles', which tells the agent to call search_articles first. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool, but with only one sibling, the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys the output shape (title, slug, URL, description) and that it returns a list, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, error behaviors (e.g., empty results), rate limits, or pagination beyond the schema's limit parameter. For a search tool, read-only is implied but not stated; the description leaves room for uncertainty about edge cases.

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 two sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action (search by keywords), then states the output format, and concludes with usage guidance for the sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is logically ordered.

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?

The tool is simple (two parameters, no nested objects, no output schema) and the description covers the essential aspects: what it searches, what it returns, and how to retrieve full content. The lack of an output schema is compensated by listing the fields in the description. It does not cover error handling or read-only guarantees, but for a straightforward search tool with clear parameter schemas, the description is adequately complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the search domain (connection guides for French brands) and explicitly instructing to use the slug with get_article, which helps the agent understand how the query parameter relates to the output. The limit parameter is fully documented in the schema, and the description does not contradict or add much beyond the schema, but the additional context about the search scope goes slightly beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Recherche') and resource ('guides de connexion' on compteparticulier.com), defines the domain (French brands and public services), and specifies the output (list with title, slug, URL, description). It also clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool get_article by instructing to use the slug with get_article for full content, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use get_article with the slug to obtain full content, which indicates when to use each tool. It provides context (search for connection guides) but does not explicitly state when *not* to use this tool (e.g., when full content is needed), though the implication is clear. No exclusions or alternatives beyond the sibling are mentioned, but with only one sibling, this is sufficient.

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