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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds a useful behavioral detail: because the training is digital, access is immediate after purchase. This clarifies what 'delay' means and goes beyond the schema and annotation defaults.

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 short sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and the second adds relevant context about immediate access, so every sentence earns its place.

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 simple, single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the purpose and key behavioral context. It does not specify the exact response structure, but it implies the tool returns availability status and a delay, which is sufficient given the low complexity and absent output schema.

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 only parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema ('Identifiant de l'offre') with 100% coverage. The description adds no further meaning about the id format or expected value, so the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 a specific verb and resource: it indicates whether an APP24 offer is available for purchase and under what delay. It is easy to distinguish from detail_offre and rechercher_offre by its focus on availability and delay, though it does not explicitly mention or differentiate sibling tools.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you need to know purchase availability or delivery delay for an APP24 offer. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare it with alternatives like detail_offre or rechercher_offre.

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