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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine context beyond them — that the call produces a signed receipt usable as independent proof of execution, and that the key is secret and self-chosen. It does not disclose failure behavior, rate limits, or what the receipt contains, keeping it short of 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the call-timing rule, and every sentence carries information. The final sentence is dense and slightly overloaded with nested quotes, costing a point but not readability.

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 return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers action, timing, and sibling relationship adequately; the only minor gap is what the caller should do if the heartbeat write fails.

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%, so both 'cle' and 'note' are documented in the schema itself. The description only adds that the key is secret and chosen by the caller — a useful framing but no syntax, length, or ledger semantics beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('record that your scheduled or recurring task just ran successfully') and immediately anchors it against the sibling confirme_tache, which it casts as the alarm counterpart. An agent can tell this is the heartbeat/write side of the pair without opening the 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?

Gives an explicit invocation rule ('Call it at the END of every successful run, every time') plus the triggering condition ('whenever your human asked you to "run this every day/hour"'), and names confirme_tache as the complementary tool. Both when-to-use and the relationship to the alternative are stated, not implied.

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