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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that it returns the public URL to cite and by enumerating the record fields returned, which gives the agent a clear expectation beyond the annotations.

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 description is structured and information-dense, with the main purpose stated first and follow-up details about the URL and id source. The bilingual FR/EN duplication doubles the length but is understandable given the likely audience; overall every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only getter with one required parameter, the description covers the returned content, the public URL return value, and the id acquisition path. The output schema is absent, so the description appropriately compensates by listing the record elements. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 schema already fully describes the id parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the id comes from search_trainings, which tells the agent where to obtain a valid value rather than just what the parameter type is.

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 uses a specific verb ('get' / 'fiche complète') and identifies the resource as a training programme, then enumerates exactly what the record contains: objectives, syllabus, prerequisites, admission, price, CPF eligibility, diploma, and establishment. It also distinguishes itself from search_trainings by clarifying that search_trainings is for discovering the id while this tool retrieves the full record.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent to obtain the id from search_trainings before calling this tool, which provides clear usage context. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings like get_certification or get_job, but the domain-specific resource (formation/training) makes the intended use unambiguous.

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