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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states it retrieves an actfile with author info but doesn't disclose whether it's read-only, whether it errors on missing IDs, whether it requires authentication, or what the return structure looks like. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words, though it could include a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is insufficient. It should explain read-only nature, error behavior, and what 'infos de son auteur' entails. The lack of a return schema makes the author-info mention helpful but incomplete.

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 0% and there is one parameter ('actfile_id'). The description says 'par id', which confirms the parameter is an identifier, but adds no format or type details beyond the schema. With low coverage, the description should compensate more, but it's minimally acceptable.

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?

Clear verb ('Récupère') and resource ('actfile') with an explicit scope ('par id'). Distinguishes itself from list_actfiles and create/delete siblings, though it doesn't name alternatives explicitly. The description also mentions returning author info, a useful addition.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_actfiles or get_community. There's no statement of prerequisites or context for retrieval. The agent must infer that this is for fetching a single actfile by its ID.

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