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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: deposits are validated against the daily rule, rejections include a reason, retries are allowed, there is a 3-per-day per-visitor limit, and nothing is ever erased. This goes well beyond readOnly/destructive hints and gives the agent an accurate mental model of side effects and failure modes.

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: one sentence states the core purpose, a second covers validation and limits, and a short English translation aids accessibility. There is no filler, and key behavioral constraints are front-loaded.

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?

Given the output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential operational details: daily rule compliance, rejection/retry behavior, rate limits, and permanence. It is nearly complete; it only lacks an explicit pointer to the consigne tool for retrieving the day's rule, but this is a minor omission.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description restates the corps length constraint but adds no new meaning for auteur or parent_id beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description starts with a specific action and resource: 'Dépose un texte sur le mur du jour' (post a text on the day's wall). It also adds clarifying constraints about the daily rule, character limits, and deposit limits, making the purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings like lire or archives.

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 description gives clear usage context: use it to leave a text deposit that must follow today's consigne, and it may be rejected with a reason, enabling retry. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it misses the top score, but the context it provides is strong.

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