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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish that this is a safe, closed-world read operation. The description adds that the output is a concrete, prioritized checklist spanning Google Business Profile, reviews, directories, website, and structured data, which helps set expectations. It still lacks detail on output structure, length, or how the optional metier changes the checklist, so it earns a 3.

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?

It is one tightly written sentence with no filler, and the key qualifiers (“concrète et priorisée”) are front-loaded. The parenthetical topic list is compact and informative.

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, non-mutating, single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to know what the tool returns and what domains it covers. Minor gaps remain around output format and how metier customizes results, but overall it is complete enough.

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%; the single optional metier parameter is already documented as “Métier (optionnel), pour adapter les conseils”. The description does not mention the parameter or add any semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description names the deliverable (a concrete, prioritized checklist) and the exact outcome and channels it covers: Google Maps/ChatGPT recommendations, Google Business Profile, reviews, directories, website, and structured data. That is clear, but it never contrasts with siblings such as tester_mon_commerce or classement_chatgpt, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It implies the use case (helping a local business be recommended on Google Maps and ChatGPT) but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also never names alternatives like tester_mon_commerce, so the agent must infer that this is the guidance/checklist tool rather than the testing or ranking tools.

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