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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses third-party data transmission to an external team, the consent gate, the no-quote policy, and a rate limit ('au plus toutes les 10 minutes') that explains the non-idempotent hint. What it omits is the caller's side of the interaction — what the tool returns or confirms after the handoff.

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?

It leads with what the tool does before layering on the consent rule, the exclusion and the rate limit, which is the right order for an agent deciding whether to call. It is a dense single paragraph, and the '« consentement » : true' fragment mildly duplicates the schema's const constraint.

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 9-parameter, 6-required mutation tool with no output schema and a light annotation set, the description covers the critical agent decisions: consent, data provenance, external transmission, and re-call behavior. The remaining gaps — the shape of the confirmation returned, and what the optional langue and message fields are used for — are minor.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the schema already documents email, message, telephone, entreprise and conversation. The description nonetheless adds real meaning: it defines the consent semantics more strictly than the schema does (explicit agreement given in the conversation, for those specific pieces of information) and clarifies that 'le cadrage et le déroulé' travel with the request, i.e. what the conversation identifier carries.

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 states a precise action (putting the user in contact with the Flow Design team), names the recipients (Victoire and Marie-Violaine), and specifies exactly what they receive (contact details, framing, conversation flow) and how they respond (by e-mail). It is unmistakably distinct from the seminar-design siblings, which deal with entirely different resources.

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 gives an explicit precondition ('À n'appeler qu'avec l'accord explicite de l'utilisateur... consentement: true'), an explicit data-source rule (only contact details the user has just provided), and an explicit exclusion ('Pas de devis : l'équipe chiffre après l'échange'). Repetition behavior is also flagged, so the agent knows calling twice has effects.

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