Fondatoria

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context about what data is returned, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or any behavioral traits beyond those annotations.

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?

Two sentences front-load the core resource and returned data, then close with a crisp usage instruction. Every clause contributes; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description provides enough to understand what is returned and when to call it. It could be slightly richer about the return structure, but it is adequate for this simple informational lookup.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty closed object, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly avoids introducing spurious parameter details.

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 names the resource (Fondatoria plans for French small businesses) and the exact data returned (prices TTC, inclusions, covered sites), which is specific and clearly distinct from the sibling preparation tools. It does not explicitly name or contrast with preparer_creation or preparer_refonte, so it stops short of a 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?

The sentence 'À appeler avant de parler de prix' gives a clear, actionable trigger: call this before discussing pricing. No alternatives or when-not conditions are provided, but the context is explicit and sufficient for an informational lookup tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, idempotent preparation step. The description adds useful context about what the tool returns (a link to the creation assistant with a pre-filled activity description) and the subsequent flow. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, auth requirements, or error conditions; with annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, return value, and the subsequent workflow. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words, though the final clause about the assistant's actions is slightly tangential.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description provides adequate context: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and what happens next. It could be more complete by explicitly mentioning when not to use it (e.g., for existing sites) or how it relates to siblings.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters ('formule' and 'description') are fully documented in the schema, including an example for 'description' and enum meanings for 'formule'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 verb and resource ('Prépare la création d'un site vitrine') and specifies the target audience ('une entreprise qui n'en a pas encore'). It distinguishes from sibling 'preparer_refonte' by focusing on creation from scratch rather than redesign, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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 businesses without a site, but does not state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'preparer_refonte' or 'decrire_offres'. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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

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 behavior: the call is free, it returns a link where the owner launches the preview, the preview is built from the owner's own content, and it completes 'en quelques minutes'. It still omits error paths (e.g. what happens for a non-Wix/WordPress URL) and any auth requirement.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and its output before the audience qualifier, with no filler. The audience enumeration is slightly long but does real routing work.

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 correctly explains what comes back (the preview link) and the turnaround; with annotations and a fully documented two-parameter schema, little else is required. Missing only failure/precondition handling for unsupported site platforms.

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 enum on formule is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only 'à partir de son adresse' for url and a loose hint of 'site seul' vs 'complet'; it contributes no syntax or format detail 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 names a concrete verb (prépare la refonte) and a concrete resource (un site vitrine Wix ou WordPress) plus the input it works from (son adresse) and the artifact it returns (le lien de l'aperçu). It is clear enough to separate from siblings like preparer_creation given the strong emphasis on an EXISTING site, though it never names those siblings 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?

It sketches the intended audience and pain points (artisan, commerçant, petite entreprise dont le site est daté, lent, mal adapté au téléphone, ou trop cher chez Wix), which implies when the tool fits. However there is no explicit when-not and no comparison to preparer_creation / decrire_offres, so the agent must infer the selection rule.

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