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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only and idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it uses official Enedis coefficients and specifies an explicit, bounded linear fallback for kWh when coefficients are unavailable. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two dense, purposeful sentences. It front-loads the core action, then adds the key fallback behavior. There is no fluff, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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?

Given the 7 parameters, the output schema, and the annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains the calculation basis, the parameter roles, and the fallback behavior. Minor gaps remain around the exact bound of the linear fallback and the absence of any routing guidance relative to siblings, but these are separate concerns.

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 0%, but the description compensates reasonably: it maps segment, option, and puissance_kva to the Enedis profile selection, and 'consommation'/'total TTC' clearly map to period_kwh and period_total_ttc_eur. The period dates are implied by 'd'une période', though not explicitly described.

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 ('Annualise') with a clear resource: consumption and/or total TTC over a period, using official Enedis profile coefficients. It is clear and detailed, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as analyze_bill or decompose_invoice, so it misses the top score.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to choose it over sibling tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no mention of alternatives like analyze_bill or simulate, and no scenario-based usage instruction.

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