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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it is a free lite version (implying limited depth/possible upsell) and states the output signals. It omits any auth, rate-limit, or coverage-limit specificity.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the limitation, then the return. No wasted prose, though the return-value sentence partly duplicates the output schema.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety; the description still conveys scope, tier, and output shape. Only the absence of any routing guidance toward sibling audit tools keeps it from a 5.

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% with a single required 'url' parameter whose format (full URL or bare domain) is documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter format, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (audite) and resource (une page) with an explicit scope enumeration: llms.txt, données structurées, contenu citable, E-E-A-T, compatibilité assistants IA. This clearly separates it from siblings like verifier_securite_plugin or detecter_wordpress, which audit different aspects.

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 phrase 'version allégée gratuite' implies this is the lightweight entry point of an audit family, hinting at when to pick it, but no explicit when/when-not or named alternative tool is given. Usage must be inferred from the audit scope.

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