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.