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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by revealing that it acts as a router/oracle returning not just capability names but also required evidence, deliverables, limits, methods, and next MCP tools to call—useful context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences: the first enumerates what will be returned, and the second gives the routing condition. Every part is useful and there is no filler.

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 low-complexity discovery tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers when to invoke it and what categories of information to expect. It would be stronger if it also clarified the 'audience' parameter, but the missing information is not critical enough to severely hamper a correct 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 only 50%: the 'audience' parameter has an enum but no explanation of what each value means, and 'capability_id' only has a terse reference to a previous call. The description itself does not explain either parameter, so the agent gains little semantic understanding beyond the raw schema.

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 a specific verb ('Liste') and concrete resource categories: available analyses, required evidence, deliverables, limits, methods, and next MCP tools to call. It also positions the tool as the first-step router for French electricity queries, clearly distinguishing it from the analytical siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: first, whenever the request concerns electricity in France or when the right path is uncertain. It does not list when-not-to-use conditions or specific alternative tools, but the routing instruction provides clear contextual guidance.

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