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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those flags: it will not extrapolate a single peak, and it can return a non-conclusive result for C4 when an unlabeled peak falls between P1 × 0.93 and P4 × 0.93. This is valuable edge-case disclosure.

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 sentences with no filler. The core evaluation rule is front-loaded, and the second sentence packs high-value requirements, thresholds, and an inconclusive condition without redundancy.

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 11-parameter schema, the description covers the most decision-critical logic and the output schema presumably covers the return shape. Still, it does not explain when to supply max-demand values, measurement period, or measurement basis, so an agent may under-specify a valid call.

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 must compensate. It does map several key concepts: evaluation_date ('date demandée'), subscribed_powers_kva (P1–P4), available_contract_tiers_kva ('paliers du contrat'), and connection_segment (C5/C4). However, important parameters such as max_demand_kw, max_demand_kva, measurement_basis, and measurement_period_days are not explained or connected to the evaluation logic.

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 opens with a specific action and resource ('Évalue la puissance à la date demandée') and adds a behavioral constraint that differentiates it from generic analysis tools: it does not extrapolate an isolated peak. The C5/C4 rules further specify exactly what kind of subscribed-power evaluation this tool performs.

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 provides clear contextual usage conditions: C5 candidacy requires a full year of official apparent peaks plus contract tiers, while C4 requires P1–P4 and has an explicit inconclusive case. It does not name sibling alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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