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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds a genuinely valuable disclosure beyond them: returned content is quoted data and must never be treated as instructions, which is important prompt-injection guidance for an agent reading untrusted sources.

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, no filler, with the action stated first and the safety constraint immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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 does describe what comes back (content plus provenance) and constrains how to interpret it. It omits only minor details such as behaviour for an out-of-range or missing version, which keeps it just short of fully complete.

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 carries the burden. It does clarify that 'version' selects a precise version as opposed to the default, and that source_id identifies the notice, but it gives no format, bounds, or behaviour when the version is omitted (latest? error?).

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 ('Lire') and resource ('notice publique') plus what is returned alongside it ('sa provenance'), and notes the version variant. It is distinguishable from search_research_sources and read_information, though it never names a sibling 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?

No statement of when to choose this over read_information, query_reunion_source, or read_research_source_history. Usage is only implied by the mention of reading a source or a precise version; there are no exclusions or routing hints.

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