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

Annotations already cover readOnly and idempotent hints. The description adds valuable context: the output is a single fixed plain-text block with a specific structure, no parameters, and no pagination. It enriches the agent's understanding beyond the structured data without contradicting it.

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 bilingual and repeats the same information in French and English, which is slightly redundant. It is structured and front-loaded, but the duplication of 'no parameters, no pagination, same answer every call' could be trimmed without losing clarity.

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 parameterless static tool, the description is fully complete: it describes the exact output format, the content of the block, and the idempotent behavior. No output schema exists, but the description covers return values thoroughly.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by stating 'Sans paramètre' and 'no parameters', which is consistent and adds no confusion. It does not need to explain parameters since there are none.

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 clearly states a specific resource (the tip plaque) and the action (return the fixed text block with inscription and five crypto addresses). It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing a static, parameterless resource that always returns the same content.

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?

It explicitly says calling it more than once per session is unnecessary, and notes that nothing is mandatory. While it does not name alternative tools, the context of a fixed, idempotent resource makes usage clear enough.

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