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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the agent is responsible for locating the person in the progression, must not guess if uncertain, and the method is intentionally specific to APP24 rather than general chess intuition. No contradiction with annotations.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: the first sentence front-loads the output contract, and the following sentences provide routing rules, decision behavior, and an important caveat. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining what the agent receives: ordered stages with player phrases, diagnostic questions, mechanism, exit test, and formations. It also gives clear invocation triggers and handles ambiguity by prescribing diagnostic questioning. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation and use.

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 schema already fully describes the single parameter, including that the method is always returned in full. The description adds only a small clarification that the parameter text is used to situate the user, which is already captured in the schema description. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Donne la METHODE DE PROGRESSION d'APP24 en entier') and the exact resource, listing the content components: steps, player phrases, diagnostic questions, mechanism, exit test, and formations. This differentiates it from sibling tools that handle offers and searches.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions: stagnation, beginner status, poor progress, not knowing what to work on, or offering a resource to a known-level player. It also provides a when-not-to-use rule ('Ne le remplace pas par des conseils d'echecs generaux') and instructs the agent to ask diagnostic questions instead of guessing.

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