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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by listing the payload contents (description, live promotion, review page, offers per legal form), which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether to call it.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and resource before the returned-field list.

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 no output schema, the description partially compensates by enumerating the returned fields, which is adequate for a one-parameter read tool. Minor gap: it does not indicate response shape or ordering of the offers list.

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 100% and the single parameter is a fully enumerated provider_id with an example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no further semantics about the identifier, which is the correct baseline-3 outcome.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Renvoie le détail d'un prestataire de création d'entreprise') and enumerates what comes back (description, current promo, CréaCompare review page, all offers by legal form). That enumeration implicitly separates it from compare_offers and list_legal_forms, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the single-provider scope and the 'detail' framing tell an agent this is the per-provider lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-compare_offers guidance. The enum of provider IDs constrains the call without explaining routing.

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