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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses idempotency semantics via invoiceId ('le rejouer ne facture jamais deux fois') and a hard execution constraint (no browser). It omits auth requirements and what the call returns, keeping 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?

Four sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The CENTIMES sentence duplicates the schema's own description of the amount field, a minor redundancy that keeps it from a 5.

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 write-oriented tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, units, idempotency, and execution constraints well. It does not address authorization requirements or the effect of matching by email vs clickId vs externalId, leaving a small 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters including the CENTIMES convention and invoiceId's role. The description's 'Montant en CENTIMES' and idempotency notes merely reinforce what the schema states, adding no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 (Enregistre) and resource (VENTE), plus the linkage to the person's original placement. None of the siblings (create_link, create_space, get_analytics, etc.) deal with sales, so an agent can immediately tell this apart.

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?

Gives a clear invocation context: 'Une vente ne peut PAS être envoyée depuis un navigateur' tells the agent this must run server-side, which is genuine usage guidance. It does not, however, name alternatives or elaborate on when not to record a sale, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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