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.