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.