Sources des données

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description usefully signals that its content is time-sensitive ('liste à jour', 'dernières nouveautés'), implying the answer changes between calls. It does not describe the response shape (e.g. whether sources and tool list are separate sections), which matters since there is no output schema.

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 French text leads with the substance (sources, licences, coverage) and places the call-to-action late but clearly. The English sentence is a compressed paraphrase rather than a full duplicate, which is reasonable for a bilingual server. Nothing reads as padding, though the bilingual split costs some tightness.

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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description carries the remaining burden of telling the agent what it will learn. It covers sources, licences, attribution, coverage gaps, tool inventory and changelog. A hint about the response's structure would close the last gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and no risk of misuse. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies a parameterless, always-available call.

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 (data sources, licences, attribution) and enumerates the extra payloads it returns: coverage status, a live tool inventory, and recent changes. It is unmistakably a metadata/discovery tool, distinct from every weather-and-place sibling in the list, though bundling four content types makes the core purpose slightly diffuse.

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?

It gives a concrete precondition: call this before concluding that a tool or dataset does not exist. That is an actionable trigger tied to a real agent failure mode. It does not name alternative tools, but no sibling overlaps with this function, so the gap is small.

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