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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the response may be incomplete while the audit runs, results include a 0-100 score, and only the top three corrections come back in full while the others are title-only. It does not cover pagination or error behavior, but the core uncertainty (partial results) is disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, both substantive, with the return content front-loaded before the partial-results caveat. The clause about the detail being 'sur le bilan en ligne' is the only slightly indirect part, since it describes an external destination rather than tool behavior.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so with a clear inventory of what comes back and the caveat about unfinished audits. For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, this is sufficient. A note on how to obtain the remaining corrections' detail would have closed the last 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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that the audit identifier is the one returned by auditer_site. The description adds no further meaning such as format, validity, or what happens with an unknown id. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 states concretely what the tool returns: audit progress, scores out of 100, the three most profitable corrections in full plus the titles of the rest. That is more informative than the bare title 'Résultat d'un audit'. It never states a verb such as 'retourne' or 'récupère', and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from detail_correction, which it only alludes to indirectly via 'le bilan en ligne'.

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?

Use is implied rather than stated: the second sentence tells the agent that while the audit is unfinished it returns progress, which amounts to a usage rule for partial results. There is no explicit 'call this after auditer_site' instruction and no routing between this tool and detail_correction; instead the description points to an external online report, which could steer the agent away from its sibling.

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