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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it lists the returned claims and explains the no-token fallback behavior. It does not disclose error handling for invalid/expired tokens, but the annotations lower the burden.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and every part adds value: what it returns, why it is useful, and what happens without a token. There is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the main needs: the returned claims are enumerated, and the no-token case is addressed. It could add how the token is supplied or what invalid-token responses look like, but these are minor gaps.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. The phrase 'jeton OAuth fourni' implies the token comes from the request context rather than a parameter, which is consistent with the empty schema. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: it returns the claims of the provided OAuth token and lists the key fields (sub, scope, audience, expiration). It is distinct from sibling tools by its explicit focus on OAuth token claims, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with identite_operateur.

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 gives a clear use case: allowing a client to verify its authorization, and it explains the behavior when no token is present (indicates how to obtain one). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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