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.