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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: it returns a link to open/download the PDF ('Renvoie un lien a ouvrir pour afficher/telecharger le PDF') and lists the input fields. However, it does not mention whether the document is stored, if there are permissions required, how the link behaves, or what happens if required fields are missing—leaving important side effects and constraints undisclosed.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the primary action, lists the fields, includes a French translation, and notes the output link in three short sentences. No wasted words, though the French translation could be seen as optional. It is efficient and easy to scan.

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 adequately explains the return value (a link to the PDF). However, for a document generator with many sibling tools, it lacks contextual information about the purpose of an avenant (e.g., modifying an existing lease), any prerequisites, or limitations. The description is functional but not fully complete for guiding an agent in all situations.

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 only specifies a generic 'payload' object, deferring to the tool description for field details. The description compensates by enumerating the actual fields (landlord_name, tenant_name, property_address, object, effective_date), which gives the agent precise parameter names beyond the schema. However, it lacks types, formats, or required status for these fields, so it doesn't fully define semantics but provides a solid baseline.

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 generates a lease amendment ('Generate a lease amendment') and lists the specific fields involved (landlord_name, tenant_name, property_address, object, effective_date). The French phrase 'avenant au bail' reinforces the document type. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like create_lease_draft, which also deals with lease documents, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_lease_draft or generate_conge. The description is purely descriptive and does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. This leaves the agent without decision-support information.

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