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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety/idempotency profile is provided structurally. The description adds output-format transparency (HTML and plain text) and the goods-only constraint, but says nothing about how the seller details are embedded or failure modes when out of scope.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by the validity caveat, then a clean parameter list. Slightly verbose due to long legal reference, but every element 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?

Covers purpose, scope limits, and all four parameters for a generation tool with no output schema. Sufficient for correct invocation; only minor gaps (exact output structure, out-of-scope behavior) remain.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It documents all four required parameters with clear intent (e.g., 'e-mail address or another digital contact'), compensating well for the empty schema. It could add format expectations (e.g., phone format) but is otherwise solid.

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 concrete verb (Build) and a specific artifact (the mandatory legal guarantees box for French consumer terms of sale), and names the exact legal basis (annex to art. D. 211-2, model A). No sibling tool produces this artifact, so it is clearly distinguished.

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?

Explicitly scopes applicability: 'Valid for the sale of goods only (pets and digital content or services have other templates).' This tells the agent when NOT to use it, though it doesn't name the specific alternative tool/template to route to.

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