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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: the answer is returned line by line with source and date, and a missing quantity is never guessed but reported back.

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?

Four sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the exclusion and the example. Dense but every sentence carries distinct information with no restatement of the title.

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 appropriately explains the return (line-by-line calculation with source and date) and the degenerate case (missing quantity). Combined with annotations, an agent has what it needs to call and interpret the 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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: the 'question' must carry quantities/options/period and is answered in any language, plus a worked example (entreprise = example.com, question = 'how much for 800 units in 6 variants per month?'). This concretely shows the expected input shape.

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 concrete verb (computes) and resource (an exact price for a specific case) and pins the source (the company's own deposited price list), returning it line by line. It scopes itself away from the published Index and rankings, so the agent can place it relative to the domain's other tools without opening a schema.

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 an explicit eligibility condition ('Only companies that have deposited a price list are covered... Isoligne clients') and a when-not ('unrelated to the published Index and rankings'). It does not name the actual sibling tools or say when to prefer them, but the applicability boundary is clear.

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