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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent. The description additionally discloses privacy guarantees ('Aucun envoi à un tiers, aucun stockage') and an input limit (max 100 lines), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions with the readOnlyHint.

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, front-loaded with the main action and scope, followed by a privacy/limit note and a pointer to a fuller service. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant repetition of schema or annotations.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description does not explain what the diagnostic result looks like (e.g., report format, JSON structure, or summary). It covers input constraints and privacy but leaves the return value unspecified. For a simple single-parameter tool, this is a notable gap that could confuse an agent expecting a certain output type.

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 has one parameter 'csv_texte' with no description (0% coverage). The description implies that the parameter is the CSV content due to the tool's purpose, but it does not explicitly define expected format, encoding, or delimiter. The mention of 'max 100 lignes, en-tête inclus' provides partial guidance, but the parameter itself remains somewhat ambiguous.

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 ('Diagnostic qualité') and resource ('extrait de fichier CRM/client au format CSV'), with clear scope (max 100 lines, header included). It enumerates the checks performed, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'verifier_siret' or 'resoudre_siren' that focus on individual entity lookup.

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 implies usage for CSV file quality analysis based on the purpose statement, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools. The mention of a full diagnostic via an external URL hints at a free-limited mode but does not compare against alternatives within the same API.

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