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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the types of information returned (policy, endpoints, zone) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires any authentication. It also fails to describe the output format, which is critical since there is no output schema.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the resource and then lists specific content categories. There is no redundant wording, and every element adds value. It is concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and content areas. However, it does not specify the format of the returned information (e.g., text, structured data), which an agent would need to know to properly use the output. It is adequate but leaves a notable 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this. Baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the absence of any parameter-related information 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 provides information about ValetVoisin, listing specific content areas (AI agent policy, endpoints, covered zone). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_task_draft and list_services, though it does not explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is clear but could be more explicit about its scope.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description only states what it does, not the conditions under which an agent should choose it. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving usage entirely implied.

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