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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description's additional list of returned content (formateur, theme, niveaux, prix, inclus, adresse) adds valuable context. It doesn't disclose potential error behavior or return format, but for a simple read-only tool this is acceptable.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a concise enumeration of the returned fields. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is nearly complete. It lists the content fields and the source of the id. It could mention error handling for invalid ids or the exact return structure, but these are minor gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 input schema already documents the single parameter 'id' with a concrete example, and the description merely restates that the id is needed ('à partir de son identifiant'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what's already structured.

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: 'Donne la fiche complete d'une offre du catalogue APP24 a partir de son identifiant' — a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying that the identifier comes from rechercher_offre, indicating a follow-up detail view.

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 that the identifier is obtained by rechercher_offre, providing a clear usage context and a natural flow from search to detail. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like conseiller_une_offre, so it's not fully explicit on exclusions.

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