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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing that only "textes déverrouillés" (unlocked texts) are searched and that results come back as "extraits horodatés", but says nothing about ranking, matching behavior, or empty-result handling.

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 verb first and zero filler. It is somewhat dense because three searchable field classes and three query types are packed into one clause, but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully signals the return shape (timestamped excerpts) and the unlocked-only scope constraint; both parameters are fully documented in the schema and annotations cover safety. Only the matching semantics (fuzzy vs exact, ranking) are absent, which is a minor gap for a two-parameter search tool.

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 the baseline would be 3, but the description meaningfully extends query semantics beyond the schema's generic "Expression ou mot-clé": it can target a thème or an intervenant, and matching spans titles, summaries and texts. The limit parameter is not elaborated, but the schema documents it fully.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Recherche un mot-clé... dans les transcriptions") and narrows scope to titles, summaries and unlocked texts. An agent can distinguish it from get_transcription_text or list_transcriptions without opening a schema, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: searching implies you want matches rather than a listing or full text, but the description never states when to prefer this over list_transcriptions or get_transcription_text, and gives no exclusions. A capable agent can infer the intent, but the guidance is left to inference.

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