Mentions légales du site

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context by listing the actual returned sections (publisher, hosting, RGPD, CGV, etc.), which helps the agent understand what the GET will produce. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a dense, single line with em-dash separated content sections and an endpoint at the end. It avoids filler words and every listed item carries information, though a structured list might be slightly easier to parse.

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's detailed outline of returned content serves as the return-value documentation. It also includes the route and the single required parameter is already documented in the schema. Minor details like response format and error behavior are absent but not critical for selecting and calling the tool.

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?

The schema fully covers the single parameter siteId as 'ID site encodé (hashid)', so schema_description_coverage is 100%. The description adds no param-specific meaning, but none is needed since the schema already documents it adequately.

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 description names a specific resource (mentions légales), enumerates its exact contents, and identifies the HTTP method and path (GET /sites/{siteId}/mentions-legales). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling updateLegalNotice and other site-related tools.

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?

Usage is implied: when the agent needs to retrieve the legal notice content for a site, this is the tool. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or any alternative such as updateLegalNotice, so the guidance is minimal.

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