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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the content is generated from the tariff and rules in force (implying the data is a snapshot that may change), and re-emphasizes read-only with no booking or payment. It omits details such as whether the content is cached or how often it refreshes, but for a static reference tool this is adequate beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and a well-organized content list, and it ends with the read-only constraint. The trailing FR/AR/ES title translations are somewhat redundant with the schema's language support, but they are brief and could aid discovery. Overall efficient, with minor redundancy.

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 reference tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states exactly which sections are covered, confirms no booking or payment occurs, and notes the content source. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to set expectations for the response.

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 100%, and the single lang parameter already documents the enum, fallback behavior, name_lang flag, and booking-link language handling. The description mentions FR/AR/ES title translations, which loosely relate to language, but adds no parameter syntax or behavior beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific resource (service conditions of Precellence Service) and enumerates the exact content covered: vehicle classes, zones, long distance, hourly hire, options, waiting time, cancellation, booking notice, payment, and contacts. It also states 'Read-only; no booking, no payment,' which directly distinguishes it from the sibling obtenir_devis. An agent can tell what this tool returns without opening the schema.

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?

The description provides clear usage context by framing the tool as a read-only reference for tariffs and rules, and by explicitly excluding booking and payment actions ('no booking, no payment'). It does not name obtenir_devis as the alternative for quotes or bookings, but the exclusion makes the boundary inferable. Clear context, though no explicit when-to-use sentence naming alternatives.

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