Moovtips — digital agency

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: this transmits the person's data to a third party (Moovtips), requires explicit consent, and gets a reply within 48 hours. It still omits failure behaviour and whether the submission is irreversible, so it stops short of complete.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the collection/consent preconditions and the 48-hour SLA. Every sentence carries information; no filler.

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 12-parameter submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the human-workflow side well but omits how to populate services (which points at services_moovtips only in the schema), langue, and the enforcement of consentement, so an agent cannot fully assemble a valid call from the description alone.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate. It names six of the fields to collect (prénom, entreprise, email, métier, ville, besoin) and implies consentement, but says nothing about services, delai, budget, langue or telephone, leaving half the parameters with no semantic support anywhere.

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 ("Envoie une demande de devis à Moovtips") plus the scope ("au nom de la personne"). It is clearly distinct from the sibling read/discovery tools (services_moovtips, offres_par_metier, lien_questionnaire), though it never names an alternative to route against.

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 gives concrete preconditions: before calling, collect prénom, entreprise, e-mail, métier, ville and besoin "sans rien inventer", then obtain explicit consent. That is strong when-to-use guidance, but it offers no exclusions or alternatives for cases where the user declines consent.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation. The description adds that the generated link has services pre-checked and is intended to be forwarded, which is useful context, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as link expiry, authentication needs, or output format.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. Every clause earns its place by conveying the link, its pre-checked state, and the intended use case.

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 read-only link generator with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and usage context. However, it omits any explanation of the 'langue' parameter and does not clarify the return type (e.g., URL string), leaving minor gaps.

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 description coverage is 50%: only the 'services' parameter has a description, while 'langue' is undocumented. The description implies the services parameter via 'services déjà cochés' but says nothing about the language parameter, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Donne') and resource ('lien du questionnaire de projet Moovtips avec les services déjà cochés'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from sibling tools like envoyer_demande or services_moovtips, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides a clear condition for use: 'à transmettre à la personne si elle préfère remplir elle-même.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, but it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for sending requests directly.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe read profile, so the description's job is to add context — and it does by disclosing the shape of the result: grouped offers per vertical, included services, and a quote link. It does not mention language behavior or rate/scope limits, but that is a minor gap against annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that wastes nothing; the resource and the returned content are both stated immediately.

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 usefully enumerates the returned content (offers, included services, quote link), which is the right move. However, for a tool with a language parameter it omits any mention of language/output localization, leaving that dimension undocumented.

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?

There is one parameter (langue, enum fr/en, default fr) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden — yet it never mentions language, localization, or which language output is returned. A user relying only on the description would not know the tool is localizable at all.

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 (Liste) and resource (offres groupées de Moovtips par métier), and enumerates the covered verticals plus the fields returned (services inclus, lien de devis). It does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling services_moovtips, which likely also enumerates offerings.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance is given. The overlap with services_moovtips (and lien_questionnaire for the quote link) is left entirely for the agent to infer.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the return payload ('la page de chaque service et le lien de devis'), which matters because there is no output schema to document 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 usage instruction is nicely front-loaded at the end, but the service list is padded with a duplicated run ('flyers / cartes de visite / magnets' repeated after already listing 'flyers, cartes de visite et magnets'). That redundancy costs space without adding 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 simple, read-only, one-optional-parameter listing tool, the description covers purpose, trigger, and return content. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, though a note on the default 'fr' language would have closed the loop.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'langue' parameter carries its own enum and explanation ('Langue de la personne'), so the schema does the work. The description says nothing about language selection, leaving it at the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Liste les services de l'agence digitale Moovtips') and enumerates the concrete offerings, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling 'offres_par_metier', which an agent could reasonably confuse with a service listing.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Utilise-le quand une personne cherche l'un de ces services.' That is a clear when-to-use condition. There is no when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling tools that cover adjacent needs (demande, questionnaire, offres par métier).

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