search_bpu_articles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states only what corpus is searched; it does not disclose result ordering, pagination, whether results are read-only, or how partial/multi-word matches behave. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with the search target stated immediately and no wasted clauses. Dense but readable; the parenthetical BPU/CPS abbreviation is useful rather than redundant.

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 simple two-parameter search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate on intent but does not describe what a result represents (a BPU line, its parent tender, matched text) or how to follow up. An agent could call it, but not confidently interpret the output.

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%, so both parameters are already documented with examples in the schema. The description adds modest value by enumerating query types (hardware references, standards, technical designations), but adds nothing about the 'limit' parameter or matching syntax beyond what the schema provides.

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 gives a specific verb ('Rechercher') and a well-defined resource: line-item articles/specifications inside BPU/CPS price schedules. The scope ('ligne par ligne', 'références matérielles, normes, désignations techniques') clearly separates it from tender-level siblings like search_tenders, although no sibling is named.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is for item/specification-level lookup rather than whole-tender search, but the description never says when to prefer it over search_tenders or what to do when no BPU article exists. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.

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