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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently details what the tool returns: sanction levels, triggers, deadlines, fine amounts, imprisonment risks, and legal basis. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the read-only nature is implied and the content disclosure is strong.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and detailed content, but it is somewhat long, including an English summary that repeats the French content. It is still informative and not wasteful, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains the four sanction levels, triggers, deadlines, fine amounts, legal basis, and optional filter. This fully compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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 description coverage is 100% for the only parameter (gravite). The description adds a brief mention of 'Optional gravite' but does not provide additional syntax or meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 DDPP inspection sanction levels and risks for French restaurants, listing the four specific levels (observation, mise en demeure, procès-verbal, fermeture administrative). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_risque_inspection or get_documents_controle_ddpp.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('lors d'un contrôle DDPP en restauration et métiers de bouche en France'). It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is specific enough to guide appropriate use.

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