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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's burden is lower. It usefully adds that the return includes the official address and language variants (with counts for PSW/PT/SML), but says nothing about format, errors, or whether an unknown service id fails.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that opens with the verb and resource, with the return detail in a trailing parenthetical. No filler. The language-count parenthetical is informative rather than wasteful, though it is slightly cluttered.

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 should carry more of the return-value burden; it does say the response includes the official address and language availability, which is genuinely useful. However, it leaves the overall shape of the response (per-language fields, structure) unspecified.

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 'service' parameter has an enum plus a description pointing to list_services, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning about the identifier beyond what the schema already states; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Décrit un service en détail') and enumerates what the detail contains: official address and per-language availability. This clearly separates it from a listing tool like list_services, though it does not name that sibling explicitly in the description text.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'en détail' implies use this for a single service's full detail rather than list_services, and the schema notes 'voir list_services', but the description itself offers no routing instructions or prerequisites.

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