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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with 'L'outil ne soumet rien' plus the post-call sequence (person consents, Dispolà calls the business and texts the confirmed time). That workflow context genuinely exceeds what annotations convey, though the response payload a caller receives remains unspecified.

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 bilingual pairing doubles length but each version is two dense sentences with the outcome and the non-submission caveat front-loaded. No filler sentences; every clause carries workflow meaning.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile, the schema fully documents all seven parameters, and the description supplies the missing behavioral picture — what the link does, who fills it in, and what happens after. No output schema is needed since the tool returns a link only.

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% and each parameter already documents its origin (sur_demande fields, comma-separated heures, lat/lng pairing). The description only restates that times, service and location get filled in, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and artifact — building a prefilled request link for a business without online booking — and anchors it in the sibling tool it depends on (sur_demande de chercher_places). An agent can distinguish this from lien_alerte_texto or chercher_places without opening a schema.

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?

Clearly scopes the tool to businesses with no online booking and explains the handoff workflow, plus an implicit exclusion ('the tool submits nothing'). It does not name an explicit alternative for businesses that do have online booking, so the when-not side is only implied.

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