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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: it discloses that a study fee applies when a transport request is submitted, and that GraceRoad publishes no transport prices, which pre-empts a plausible agent expectation.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource identity before the enumeration of contents, and ending with the key constraint about pricing. All content earns its place, though the long parenthetical service list is slightly heavy.

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 must convey what an agent gets back, and it does so by enumerating services, countries, request process, and fee structure. The lack of explicit sibling routing is the only real gap for a zero-parameter informational tool.

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 the single 'langue' enum parameter is fully documented in the schema with its default. The description adds nothing about it, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Describes') and resource (GraceRoad / GRACECORP AMD GROUP SAS) and enumerates the content it returns: services, countries, request process, and fees. It is clearly distinguishable from graceroad_preparer_demande by being the informational overview, though it never names the siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the orientation/company-info tool to call before requesting a service, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to graceroad_corridors / graceroad_preparer_demande.

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