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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description still adds genuinely non-structured operational context: that some services run in async mode and can take several hours, and that each entry carries price, delay and limits — useful for setting agent expectations about latency and cost.

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 catalogue scope and the async/latency caveat, then the read-before-use rule. The middle enumeration of per-item fields is somewhat enumerative but each item signals decision-relevant data (price, delay, limits).

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 an output schema present, the description need not restate return fields, yet it does list them — mildly redundant but harmless. Combined with the sibling-routing instruction, nothing an agent needs in order to call this zero-parameter read correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming the catalogue is unfiltered.

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+resource ("Catalogue des services") and immediately scopes it against the closest sibling by noting it covers services "au-delà des questions" (i.e., not the ask tool). It also names the concrete example autark-static-site, so an agent knows exactly what class of offering lives here.

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?

Ends with an explicit ordering instruction: "Lire avant quote_service ou run_service." That names the alternatives and the condition under which this tool must be consulted first — no inference required.

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