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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the lower bar applies. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the returned link embeds the pre-checked services, and the intended consumer is a third party who fills it in. No output schema exists, so the note that the result is a transmissible link is the key disclosure; expiry, format and auth needs remain unstated.

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 opens with the verb and resource and wastes no words. The trailing conditional clause is informative rather than filler, though the sentence carries a lot at once.

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 two-parameter, read-only link generator with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what the link contains, and who should receive it — enough to call it correctly. The gaps are secondary: nothing about the language parameter or link validity.

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 only 50%: "services" is documented in the schema, while "langue" has an enum and a default of "fr" but no prose anywhere. The phrase "avec les services déjà cochés" maps implicitly to the services parameter, but the description never mentions the language parameter or how the two interact.

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+resource pair ("Donne le lien du questionnaire de projet Moovtips") and clarifies what the link contains ("avec les services déjà cochés"). The closing clause about transmitting it to someone implies the boundary with the sibling envoyer_demande (send the request vs. give a self-service link), but the sibling is never named explicitly.

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 a clear usage condition — use this when the person prefers to fill the questionnaire out themselves rather than having the agent submit on their behalf. It does not name envoyer_demande as the alternative or state any exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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