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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that — fixed 20-item pages and the advice to paginate rather than fetch everything — but says nothing about result ordering, total counts, or how the agent knows it has reached the last page.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words, and the pagination constraint is placed where it matters. The only weakness is that the density borders on cryptic, and the description is in French while the tool name, title, and parameter names are English.

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 simple three-parameter, zero-required, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of paging and filtering. It still omits what a returned item looks like and when enumeration is complete, which matters for a paginated listing the agent must drive itself.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it does map each of the three parameters to a purpose (q = name filter, status = status filter, page = pagination). It adds no detail on match semantics for 'q' (substring vs prefix) or whether 'page' is zero- or one-based, leaving real ambiguity for an undocumented 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lister les modèles gérés dans ce projet') plus the batch size, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish this from the many sibling listing tools such as list_site_templates, list_website_templates, or list_template_sections, which is what keeps it below a 5.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: filter by name/status and advance with page to preserve context. However, it never says when to pick this tool over the sibling template-listing tools, so the agent must infer the choice from the name alone.

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