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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real constraints: the audit must be finished and the correction must be one of the top three. It also previews the payload (pages concerned, complete correction instruction). It does not cover error behavior for unknown codes.

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?

A single sentence with a colon that front-loads the scope and then enumerates the returned content. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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?

With two required parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description gives enough to call the tool correctly, including the precondition of a finished audit. Only failure modes for invalid codes or unfinished audits are left implicit.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including that the code is shown in brackets in the corrections list. The description only reinforces the 'one of the three corrections' framing and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 names a specific resource and scope: the detail of one of the three most profitable corrections of a completed audit, plus what it returns (affected pages and the full fix instruction). That distinguishes it from auditer_site and resultat_audit, though the leading word 'Détail' partly restates the tool name.

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 implies the tool is only usable on a completed audit and only for the top-three corrections, and the schema notes the code comes from the corrections list. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over resultat_audit or what to do if the audit is still running.

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