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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is a catalogue of fields/relations/statuses/constraints and that it should be consulted before mutations, but says nothing about the shape or size of the response or whether a call without a type returns everything.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource/purpose statement before the imperative guidance, with no filler. Density is high, though the domain hint at the end is slightly cryptic out of context.

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 read-only discovery tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description covers intent and timing, which is most of what an agent needs. It is still silent on the return structure and on the no-parameter behavior, and the French-only text sits among otherwise English tooling, a minor friction for an agent deciding whether to call it first.

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 carries the full burden for the single 'type' parameter, and it never mentions it. The enum values are largely self-describing and the framing ('catalogue des ressources') implies a resource selector, but the description does not say what omitting 'type' does (all resources vs. an error) or that the parameter must come from the fixed enum.

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 specifically that it returns a catalogue of resources with their fields, relations, statuses and constraints, which is a clear verb+resource statement of a metadata-discovery tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling describe_* tools (describe_collections, describe_forms, describe_workflows), leaving the agent to infer that this one spans all resource types.

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?

'Lire avant toute création ou modification' gives a concrete, actionable when-to-use rule tied to create/update flows. The closing note that readonly resources have dedicated business actions steers the agent away from generic write tools for those resource types, though it names no alternative tool explicitly.

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