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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint: true, and the description reinforces this by saying 'returns' and adding 'Gratuit' (free). It also discloses the exact content of the response (overall score, category scores, criteria). This adds context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that lists the resource, parameters, and return contents, plus a one-word note ('Gratuit'). Every word earns its place, with no fluff.

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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the input (audit_id) and the output structure (scores, criteria). It doesn't address error cases (e.g., audit not found), but that's not critical for this simplicity. The readOnlyHint annotation further completes the picture.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with a good description of audit_id, including where it comes from (returned by aeo_audit). The tool description merely says 'par audit_id' and adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 tool returns the full details of an existing audit, including global score, category scores, and all criteria with recommendations. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from related tools like aeo_audit (which likely creates audits) and aeo_audit_status (which likely returns only status).

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 phrase 'audit existant (par audit_id)' makes it clear that this tool is for retrieving details of an already completed audit, implying you should first use aeo_audit to get an audit_id. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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