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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the output is a link and clarifies the two report types, but says nothing about what the link opens or any access conditions.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the return type ('Lien vers un exemple de rapport') and then enumerates the two variants. No wasted text.

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 simple link-returning tool with no output schema and no required parameters, the description adequately explains what is returned and the two service modes. Minor gaps around locale behavior are covered by the schema.

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 coverage is 75%, with detailed descriptions for `locale` and `langue_sml`. The description only implicitly maps `slug`/`service` to the two report modes; it adds little beyond the schema for the remaining parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high coverage.

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 it returns a link to an example report, with two variants: a test example page or the ScanMyLove demo report. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_test or get_article, though the phrasing is nominal rather than verb-first.

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 two modes (test example page vs. ScanMyLove demo) imply when to use each, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over get_test or other report-related siblings. The `service` distinction is left implicit.

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