Chercher dans le parc

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so safety is covered; the description adds the substantive trait that matching is case-insensitive and asymmetric between the two entity types (name+description for repos, name only for libraries). Return shape and whether results are truncated are left unstated, but an output schema exists so that gap is minor.

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 sentences, both front-loaded with the operative information: first what matches, then why call it. No filler, no restating of the title.

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 single-parameter, read-only search tool with an output schema, this covers matching semantics, case handling, and the intended next step. Only minor gaps remain: no mention that a minimum of two characters is required, and no hint about result volume or ordering, which matters for an openWorld search.

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 `terme` property already documents itself with an example, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns an extra point by adding meaning the schema lacks: case-insensitivity and the fact that the term is matched against description as well as name for repositories.

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?

The definition names the searched resources precisely: repositories matched on name or description, and libraries matched on name only, with case-insensitive matching. This is far more specific than the name/title alone. It falls short of a 5 because it never contrasts with the sibling list tools (parc_depots, parc_librairies), so the agent must infer that this is the fuzzy-search entry point rather than a listing tool.

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 second sentence gives an explicit use case and follow-up: find an exact name before calling `parc_depot` or `parc_librairie`, which is real routing guidance. It does not state when *not* to use it (e.g., when listing everything, where parc_depots/parc_librairies would apply), leaving one boundary implicit.

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