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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the 30-minute code validity, the five-attempt limit, and the fact that this validation is the sole authorization for forwarding the request to installers. It also explains the no-duplicate consequence of retrying demander_devis, adding valuable behavioral context.

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?

Three dense sentences cover purpose, workflow, user interaction, and edge-case handling without redundancy. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies all necessary workflow context: input provenance, retry conditions, expiration, and downstream side effect. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaningful provenance semantics by stating demande_id comes from demander_devis, that the code must be requested from the user rather than guessed, and that retries do not create duplicates.

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 states a specific action ('Valide une demande de devis') with a precise mechanism (4-digit SMS code) and names the related tool that creates the request. It clearly distinguishes itself from demander_devis, and the title reinforces the same purpose.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to ask the user for the code, call the tool with the demande_id from demander_devis, and provides the exact fallback flow if the code expires or after five failed attempts. This is model guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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