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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: downloads open inside the app and require a connected session, and the output is a set of links rather than a rendered asset. It stops short of saying whether those download links expire, which keeps it from a 5.

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 output enumeration is front-loaded and the usage conditions and alternative follow in a logical order, with no filler sentences. It is a dense, long single block rather than clearly separated clauses, which slightly hurts scannability but every sentence still 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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating the return payload (QR, public link, card, PDF and PNG/SVG download links). Combined with read-only annotations and a single well-documented optional parameter, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 enum values already carry clear explanations (a5 = demi-feuille / comptoir, a6 = quart de feuille / chevalet). The description only echoes 'PDF A5 ou A6' and adds nothing about default behavior or what changes when a6 is chosen, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and enumerates exactly what the tool returns: the registration QR code, the public link, the card, and download links for the printable poster (PDF A5/A6) and the QR alone (PNG, SVG). It names the sibling it is not ('Pour recevoir les PDF par e-mail : envoyer_affichette'), so an agent can distinguish it from envoyer_affichette without opening either schema.

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?

'À utiliser quand le commerçant veut imprimer son affichette, récupérer son QR code ou le lien à mettre dans sa bio' gives explicit trigger conditions, and the trailing sentence names the alternative tool for the email-delivery case. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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