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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It transparently lists the five categories of checks (visual, temperature, stock, staff hygiene, documentation) and notes that the checklist varies by establishment type. It does not mention side effects or limitations, but as a read-only retrieval tool, no major behavioral disclosures are needed.

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 moderately verbose but front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a structured list of content categories and a clear English translation. Every sentence adds value, though it could be tightened by removing the English duplicate, but the bilingual format is useful.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter schema and no output schema, the description provides a rich picture of the expected return: a checklist covering all specified areas. It does not explain default behavior for an unrecognized type, but that is covered in the schema. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 covers 100% of the parameter with a description, including valid values and fallback behavior. The tool description adds only that the parameter 'adds trade-specific items,' which adds little beyond the schema's description. Therefore, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's function: it returns the full daily pre-opening checklist for a French food establishment, with detailed content categories and reference to HACCP/GBPH. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_haccp_temperatures (temperature-specific) or get_plan_nettoyage_type (cleaning plans), as it covers the holistic checklist.

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 description clearly conveys when to use the tool (daily pre-opening verification) and mentions the optional type_etablissement parameter for trade-specific checks. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools for comparison, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over more specialized tools.

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