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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: what Fondatoria does to the page (hosting, form, legal notices, SEO), that the owner can later edit without code, that the call returns the link where the owner verifies details and creates the site, and that invented reviews/figures/labels are held back until confirmed. That is exactly the kind of side-effect and outcome disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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 opening sentence front-loads the purpose and the rest are dense with operational detail; little is wasted. The first sentence is long and packs several clauses, but each carries information an agent needs.

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 takes on the job of explaining the return value (the link to the owner's site) and the confirmation flow, plus input format constraints and the treatment of unverified claims. Nothing needed to call this correctly appears to be missing.

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 the baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by clarifying what the html payload may contain (Tailwind via CDN, Google fonts, scripts, styles, images as links) and by framing nom/email/telephone/ville as the owner's real coordinates that get verified. The allowed-resource detail is genuinely absent from 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 specific verb and resource: it puts online the showcase site the agent just wrote in HTML, and lists the concrete transformations (hosting, contact form, legal notices, SEO, no-code editing). This is far from tautological. It does not, however, distinguish itself explicitly from the sibling tools (preparer_creation, 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?

'Le site vitrine que vous venez d'écrire' and 'Envoyez la page complète telle que vous l'avez écrite' establish that this runs after the HTML page exists and that the exact written page should be submitted. Usage context is clear, but no explicit exclusions or named alternatives are given, so it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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