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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful scope: only free tests are included and the returned fields are listed. However, it does not disclose potential pagination, ordering, authentication needs, or response shape, though a simple read-only list operation reduces the risk.

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 compact French sentence delivers the action, scope, and expected fields without filler. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 parameterless list operation, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, limits scope to free tests, and enumerates return fields since no output schema exists. It could add explicit guidance on using get_test for individual test details, but that is a minor gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a concern. The description correctly focuses on the output fields instead. Per calibration, 0 parameters earns a baseline 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('Liste') and a precise resource ('les tests psychologiques gratuits de ScoreMindset'), and enumerates the returned fields (slug, titre, durée, thème). This clearly distinguishes list_tests from sibling get_test: one enumerates, the other retrieves a single item.

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 context is implicit: this tool is for listing free psychological tests, while get_test likely retrieves a specific test. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named, so the agent must infer the routing from the name and sibling list.

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