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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds that the tool returns 'étapes et champs attendus' — a hint at output content that the annotations do not provide — plus the sequencing constraint. It does not describe the shape of the returned field list, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

The purpose and the sequencing instruction are front-loaded and efficient, but the parenthetical list of sixteen devis types largely duplicates the enum values in the schema and inflates the sentence substantially. Roughly half the text is redundant with structured data.

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, read-only lookup with no nested objects, no output schema, and full enum coverage, the description supplies the two things an agent actually needs: what it returns ('étapes et champs attendus') and when to call it relative to estimate_quote. Little is missing, though a note on output shape would close the remaining 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single slug parameter is a fully documented enum, so the schema carries the semantics. The description's service-domain list maps loosely onto the enum values but adds no format, casing, or fallback guidance beyond what the enum already enumerates. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: it 'Décrit une estimation de devis Vitef ... étapes et champs attendus', which is a concrete schema-introspection action rather than a restatement of the name. It is distinguishable from the sibling estimate_quote because it positions itself as the preparatory step. The exhaustive parenthetical list of devis domains adds bulk but not additional clarity about what the tool does.

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?

'À appeler avant estimate_quote' gives explicit sequencing and names the sibling alternative with the condition that selects it, so an agent knows exactly where this fits in the workflow. It stops short of stating when not to use it or what estimate_quote returns, but the routing intent is unambiguous.

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