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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: output is a link to display/download a PDF, the report is semi-filled, and it references the legal decree. This adds useful context beyond a simple 'generate' statement, though it omits details like authentication requirements or whether any data is stored.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by field list and return-behavior note. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with no major redundancy, though the French phrase for the return link adds a slightly mixed-language style.

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 simple schema and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, fields, output format (PDF link), and legal basis. It lacks explicit error handling or details on which fields are pre-filled, but overall it covers the essential operational aspects for a generation tool.

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 only defines a generic 'payload' object with no predefined properties, so the description's enumeration of fields (landlord_name, property_type, tenant_names, rooms, property_address) is essential for the agent to construct valid input. This compensates for the opaque schema, though it lacks types or constraints for these fields.

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 it generates a semi-filled, print-and-complete inventory report (etat des lieux) under decree 2016-382, with specific fields listed. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_inventaire_mobilier, which handles furniture inventory, and other generate_* tools.

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 context by noting the report is 'print-and-complete,' suggesting it's for creating a PDF to be manually finished. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for move-in/move-out inspections) or mention any exclusions.

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