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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that rules are 'fixed' and 'structured and in words', hinting at textual output, but doesn't elaborate on format or language handling beyond that.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists topics in parentheses. It's a single sentence, slightly long but not verbose, and all content is relevant.

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 an output schema present, return format is not needed. The description covers the main parameter and gives partial context for client, but misses usage guidance and explicit langue semantics. Given the simple enum-based schema, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly enumerates all valid values for 'sujet' and indirectly explains 'client' via phrases like 'private or professional'. However, it does not explain the 'langue' parameter at all, leaving that gap.

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 tool returns fixed rules of Gold & Silver Company, listing specific topics (tva, especes, documents, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on rule retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'ask' or 'cotation'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It implies rule lookup, but doesn't state 'use this for fixed rules, ask for general questions, cotation for pricing' – leaving the agent to infer.

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