Open a Journal officiel issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior by describing the two return shapes (full act vs. TOC with act ids) and the semantic meaning of the issue date. No output schema exists, so this prose return-shape disclosure is doing real work; it stops short of describing pagination or failure modes.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then dense but useful routing in three sentences. Slightly parenthesis-heavy, yet every sentence carries distinct information (return shapes, item hand-off, year listing).

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 one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the missing return-value semantics and sibling routing. It is complete enough to invoke correctly; only edge cases (invalid numbers, empty TOC) are unaddressed.

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 100% and the single param is already described, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining what the two number formats mean and what each yields, which the schema's bare 'e.g.' does not convey.

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+resource ('Opens an issue of the Journal officiel de la Nouvelle-Calédonie') and crucially disambiguates itself from siblings: it explains that JONC-number lookups return the act while plain numbers return a table of contents, and points to leginova_get_jonc_item and leginova_browse. An agent can distinguish this from leginova_browse and leginova_get_jonc_item without opening any 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?

Explicit routing: it tells the agent that plain numbers return a TOC whose per-act ids are passed to leginova_get_jonc_item, and that leginova_browse lists the issues of a year. When to use this tool versus the two nearest alternatives is spelled out rather than inferred.

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