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

Annotations already declare this is a non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds real value beyond them with the per-day quota and Paris-time reset window, which an agent cannot infer from the schema. It omits what happens to existing/old codes after a refresh and what occurs when the quota is exceeded.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the action front-loaded and the constraint in the second sentence. Every clause carries information.

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 zero-parameter action tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, scope, and quota. The main remaining gap is the side effect on previously issued codes, which matters for a non-idempotent bulk mutation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it correctly avoids inventing inputs.

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+resource with explicit bulk scope: 'bump every active code of the user at once'. The 'every ... at once' phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling refresh_code, though it never names that sibling.

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 quota sentence implies when the tool is available ('1 per day' vs 'unlimited'), which is useful gating context. However, it never says when to prefer this over refresh_code or list_my_codes, and gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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