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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit by disclosing something not in the annotations: "Ne consomme aucun quota", a cost trait an agent needs when deciding whether to call it repeatedly. It does not describe failure behavior beyond the account-recognition check.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, leading with the verification purpose and following with the operational constraint. Only minor quibble is that the quota note could be merged more economically, but nothing is wasted.

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 zero-parameter health-check tool with an output schema already documenting the return values, the description supplies purpose, ordering, and cost with nothing material missing. An agent can decide to call it and interpret success without further context.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter detail that the empty schema would contradict.

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 ("Vérifier") and resource ("le connecteur TOISE"), plus a second check ("le compte est reconnu"). This clearly sets it apart from the data-retrieval siblings such as toise_dossier_adresse or toise_compte, which it implicitly precedes.

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 concrete sequencing guidance: run it "avant d'enchaîner sur une adresse, une parcelle ou une société", which tells the agent this is a pre-flight step. It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool or stating when not to call it, so it falls just below the top score.

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