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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds what annotations cannot: nothing changes with confirmer=false, the recipient is restricted to the connected account's address (never arbitrary), and the announce-then-confirm protocol. It does not contradict the annotations — the 'destructive' flag is conservative for a self-addressed send, and the description makes the actual effect explicit.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is sent and where, then the recipient constraint, then the confirmation protocol. Every sentence carries a distinct, actionable constraint; nothing is padding.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers content, format, recipient restriction, and the mandatory confirmation sequence — enough to invoke correctly. It could say what the tool returns after a successful send (success message, delivery caveats), but that is a minor omission.

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 100% and the schema property already spells out the confirmer preview/execute semantics, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the parameter's place in the workflow ("Appeler avec confirmer=false (défaut) pour annoncer l'envoi, puis confirmer=true après accord"), adding flow context rather than new syntax, so slightly above baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Envoie l'affichette de comptoir") plus the exact content and channel (PDF A5/A6 with inscription QR, sent by e-mail). It is distinguishable from the sibling 'affichette' by the delivery channel, though the sibling is never named explicitly to make the contrast airtight.

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?

Gives a clear use case ("pour l'imprimer depuis un autre appareil ou chez un imprimeur") and a hard constraint ("Seulement à cette adresse, jamais à une autre"), plus the ordering of the two-step confirmation. It stops short of routing the agent to a named alternative (e.g. 'affichette' for on-screen preview).

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