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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not publish or pay, returns a reviewUrl for human confirmation, and requires the agent to pass the URL to the human. This is meaningful behavioral context. It could add more about side effects or state changes, but the core non-destructive behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, all information-dense and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the critical workflow constraint, and the third gives the prerequisite. No filler or repetition.

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 draft-creation tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: what it does, what it returns (reviewUrl), and the prerequisite step. It doesn't describe the output format in detail, but the reviewUrl mention is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. The main gap is not describing what happens after the human confirms, but that's outside the tool's scope.

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%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters. The description adds context for categorySlug (choose via list_services) and mentions the reviewUrl flow, but doesn't add much beyond the schema for individual parameters. 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 purpose: preparing a draft mission (brouillon de mission) without publishing or paying. It gives concrete examples (plumber in Fribourg, cleaning in Lausanne) and explicitly distinguishes itself from publishing/payment actions. The verb 'Prépare' is specific and the resource (mission draft) is clear.

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 explicitly instructs to use valetvoisin_list_services first to choose categorySlug, and explains the workflow: return a reviewUrl to transmit to the human for verification/correction/confirmation. It also states what NOT to do (ne publie rien, ne paie rien), which is strong usage guidance.

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