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.