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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds that the read is scoped to the current project and returns a "complete" element plus a version, but leaves "version" undefined and says nothing about what happens for an unknown type or id.

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 short sentence with the read purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the ambiguous "sa version" phrasing spends its few words on something the agent cannot act on.

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?

This is a polymorphic fetch over 50 entity types with no output schema and no parameter documentation, so the description carries the full burden of explaining what comes back per type. It does not do that, and the unexplained "version" concept adds ambiguity rather than clarity.

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 neither parameter is described anywhere; the 50-value `type` enum in particular has no explanation of what each entity type means or how it affects the response. The description only weakly hints that `id` is scoped to the current project via "dans le projet courant", which is far short of compensating for the coverage gap.

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?

"Lire un élément complet et sa version dans le projet courant" states a read verb and a generic resource, but calls it "un élément" rather than a record, so nothing distinguishes it from siblings like get_page, get_collection, or list_records. The phrase "sa version" is unexplained and misleading, since no version parameter exists in the 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of when to pick this over list_records, get_collection, or batch_records, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The only implicit cue is "dans le projet courant", which hints at project scoping but not at tool selection.

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