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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: billing is 0 $ because no new document is delivered, and a personal Fonciq API key must be supplied in the Authorization header. That is context the annotations do not carry.

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 English statement is front-loaded and efficient, but every sentence is duplicated in French with no added information, roughly doubling the length. That duplication is redundancy rather than concision, keeping it at 3.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of shape, and it does state JSON with one block per lot and that no new document is produced. Billing and auth are covered. Slightly more detail on the block structure would close the remaining gap.

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% with a single 'id' parameter, so the schema already does the work. The description only reinforces that the input is a job id implicitly through the route text, adding nothing like format or validity constraints beyond the schema. 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?

The description gives a specific endpoint and resource: 'GET /v1/jobs/{id}/results. Parsed index lines of a finished job (JSON, one block per lot).' An agent can distinguish it from job_get or document_get by the returned content (parsed lines per lot). It doesn't explicitly name which sibling to use instead, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Of a finished job' implies the prerequisite (job must be complete), and 'The index PDF remains the source of record' hints at the trade-off, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over job_get, lot_get, or document_entries. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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