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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral caveats: the analysis is conditional, scenarios must not be framed as forecasts, and general guidance must not be presented as individualized legal or tax advice.

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 sentences with no filler: purpose is front-loaded, the prerequisite workflow appears second, and the necessary caveats are last. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 tool with a very rich schema and output schema, the description covers the core workflow and disclaimers well. However, it leaves matched_profile undocumented and gives no guidance on when callers should provide it or how it relates to customer scenarios, so completeness is acceptable but not tight.

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%, so the description had to compensate, but it only clarifies customer roles, contract extraction artifacts (extract.ppa, extract.reading_coverage), and the notion of client-provided economic sensitivities. It does not explain matched_profile, most customer fields, or how the scenarios map to inputs; the burden on the description is largely unmet.

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 identifies a specific action ('Produit une analyse PPA conditionnelle') and resource (PPA), names the supported customer roles, and lists the analysis dimensions delivered. It also distinguishes itself from extract_energy_document by prescribing that tool as a prerequisite rather than duplicating extraction.

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 gives clear usage context by specifying that contract-text analysis must start with extract_energy_document and then pass extract.ppa and extract.reading_coverage. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare it to sibling analysis tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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