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 real behavior: data is transmitted to a third party (Moovtips), an explicit consent gate is required, and a response arrives within 48 hours. It stops short of describing failure handling or what happens if consent is refused, but the third-party transfer and consent requirement are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs.

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 sentences with no padding: the action leads, the data-collection prerequisites follow, and the 48-hour SLA closes. Well front-loaded and every sentence carries information, though the middle sentence is dense.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema and only 50% schema coverage, the description covers the consent flow and turnaround time but leaves the required 'services' enum unexplained and says nothing about the optional fields. Adequate but incomplete given the tool's complexity.

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%. The description names six of the eight required fields (prénom, entreprise, email, métier, ville, besoin) and reinforces the consent semantics with 'sans rien inventer', but it omits the required 'services' enum parameter and all optionals (delai, budget, langue, telephone), so it only partly compensates 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?

States a specific verb (envoie) and resource (demande de devis) plus the recipient (Moovtips) and on whose behalf (au nom de la personne). The purpose is unambiguous, though it never contrasts itself with the siblings (services_moovtips, offres_par_metier, lien_questionnaire), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 explicit pre-invocation steps: collect prénom, entreprise, email, métier, ville and besoin without inventing anything, then obtain explicit consent before sending. That is strong when-to-use context, but it names no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions relative to the sibling tools.

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