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

It adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: required batches:write scope, Bearer API key auth, Idempotency-Key handling with 24-hour stored answers, and detailed billing rules including test-key and 4xx/5xx zero-cost behavior. It also distinguishes Fonciq billing from the Registre's separate 1,50 $ fee, which is useful operational context not captured by the annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the description is heavily bloated by full bilingual duplication and repeated billing/auth statements. Several sentences repeat the same information in English and French, so much of the text does not earn its place.

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 mutation tool with rich annotations and no output schema, it covers auth, scope, idempotency, limits, account routing, and billing thoroughly. It does not describe the return value or queued-job identifier, which would help an agent understand what comes back from a batch submission.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters; the baseline would be 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining idempotency_key is sent as the Idempotency-Key header, retained 24 hours, and reused on retry, plus that account spreading is overridden when an account is pinned.

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 resource: "Queues an index for up to 500 lots" via POST /v1/batches, with the scope clarified as active Registre accounts unless one is pinned. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name a sibling such as registre_index_request to sharpen batch-vs-single differentiation.

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 implies batch usage through "up to 500 lots" and account spreading, so an agent can infer it is for many lots at once. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not name registre_index_request as the single-lot alternative.

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