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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key non-obvious traits: the score is 'publié' (not computed live), it reflects what an AI assistant can read without executing JavaScript, and it includes the measure's limitations. It stops short of describing error behavior, authorization needs, or side effects, but the read-only nature is clearly implied.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first part states the core purpose immediately, and the second part lists additional return contents without fluff. Both sentences earn their place, and the text is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it states the input, the core return value, the additional returned fields, and the measurement limitations. There is no overlooked operational aspect that an agent would need to call this tool correctly.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of the single parameter 'domaine' with an example, so the baseline is 3. The tool description reinforces the role of the parameter by tying it to the domain whose score is returned, but it adds no additional format, validation, or usage detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verb and resource: it returns the published Agent Readiness Score for a domain, and clarifies what that score represents by adding the limitation 'sans exécuter de JavaScript'. It also enumerates the returned information (detail par axe, date, barème, ce que la mesure ne dit pas), making its purpose concrete and distinguishable from sibling tools like 'ce_qui_manque'.

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?

The intended use is implied: call this when you need the published Agent Readiness Score for a given domain and its breakdown. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over its siblings, such as 'ce_qui_manque' or 'secteur', nor does it provide any exclusion conditions or alternative routing.

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