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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, yet the description still adds genuine behavioral context the annotations cannot: results carry the promoter's last-update timestamp and a freshness grade with concrete thresholds (high < 24 h, medium < 72 h, low beyond). It does not discuss pagination or what happens if a lot id is unknown, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and its result shape, and every clause carries information: status enum glosses, the update date, the reliability scale with thresholds, then the usage triggers. Nothing is redundant or restated from the schema.

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 compensates by documenting in prose what comes back (status values, update date, reliability index) and when to call it. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and to interpret the response without further documentation.

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% and the single parameter is already documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The phrase 'un ou plusieurs lots' confirms batch behavior, but the description never mentions the schema's maxItems=20 cap or what partial failures look like.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Vérifie le statut commercial actuel ... d'un ou plusieurs lots') and enumerates the four possible status values with glosses, so an agent knows exactly what the call answers. It also distinguishes the payload from a plain lot fetch by naming the last-update date and a reliability index as part of the result.

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?

It gives two concrete triggers: before recommending a lot or proposing a connection, and when the buyer asks whether a property is still available. There is no explicit exclusion or sibling routing (e.g. 'use get_lot for full details, search_lots for discovery'), so the guidance is contextual but not exhaustive.

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