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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the first-gallery-goes-live vs subsequent-inactive behavior, states that the response explains this, enumerates the return payload (share link, QR code, live wall link, guest code if private), and says missing name/date are requested. Nothing contradicts the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false).

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and most sentences carry actionable information (returns, required inputs, live-vs-inactive rule). It is somewhat long — the QR/no-app/projected-wall sentence leans client-facing rather than invocation-critical — but nothing is wildly redundant.

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 compensates by enumerating what is returned (share link, QR code, live wall link, guest code). Combined with a fully documented input schema, it covers the key facts an agent needs: required fields, optional theme/font, and the first-gallery activation nuance.

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%, so the schema already documents name, date, theme, font, and private with detailed enum labels. The description only restates that name/date are required if missing and that theme/font are accepted, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

Starts with a precise verb+resource ("Crée une galerie photo partagée Insta-Pola pour un évènement") and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_gallery, list_galleries, and update_gallery by being the creation action. An agent can immediately tell this tool makes a new gallery rather than reading or modifying one.

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 triggering context (need a shared gallery for an event) and implicitly excludes follow-up work by noting welcome text and moderation happen later on insta-pola.com, not here. It does not explicitly name update_gallery or other alternatives for editing, so it falls short of a full when-to-use/when-not statement.

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