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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful context that results span two corpora (multi-arena leaderboards and native catalog), but says nothing about result limits or empty-match behavior, so it adds only modest value.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by query-value examples. No filler; the parenthetical examples all serve to clarify accepted input. Slightly terse given the missing limit behavior, but structurally clean.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. The required parameter is well covered, but with 0% schema coverage the omission of any mention of the 'limit' parameter and search behavior (partial match, ranking) leaves meaningful gaps for a tool whose inputs are otherwise sparsely documented.

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 parameter meaning. It does document what the required 'query' matches (name, style, provider) with concrete examples, which is a real contribution. However, the optional 'limit' parameter (default 12, max 30) is never mentioned in the description, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 ('Recherche textuelle de stratégies') and names its scope: multi-arena leaderboards plus the native catalog. That scope distinguishes it from list_arena_strategies and list_native_strategies without naming them, so an agent can tell it apart, though the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names an alternative such as list_arena_strategies or list_native_strategies. The fact that it is a text search is only implied by 'Recherche textuelle'; nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over the list_* siblings.

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