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 value beyond them: the call is free, it returns a link, and the preview is generated from the owner's own content in a few minutes. It does not mention any auth or rate-limit constraints, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loads the action, then the returned artefact, then the qualifying audience; no filler. The closing audience sentence is somewhat promotional but earns its place by carrying the when-to-use signal.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining the return value (le lien où le propriétaire lance l'aperçu). Combined with 100% schema coverage, an agent has what it needs to invoke it correctly; only edge behaviour (preview expiry, re-invocation effects) is left implicit.

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 both params (url, formule) are documented in the schema itself, including the unusual note that formule is ignored. The description adds nothing about parameter formats, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (prépare la refonte d'un site vitrine) plus its input (l'adresse du site actuel) and its output (le lien de lancement de l'aperçu). 'À partir de son adresse' implicitly separates it from a from-scratch creation tool, but no sibling is named, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

Gives clear qualifying context: an artisan/commerçant/petite entreprise whose site is daté, lent, mal adapté au téléphone or trop cher chez Wix. It never says when NOT to use it or names decrire_offres / preparer_creation as the alternative, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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