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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful operational behavior beyond annotations: it executes pure methods directly and explicitly rejects non-serializable contexts. No contradiction with 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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core action and the main exclusion are stated immediately, so every sentence earns its place.

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?

Because an output schema and rich annotations exist, return values and safety are covered elsewhere. The description still leaves valid_on vs version and the precise meaning of 'hash d'entrée' implicit, but the reference to get_methodology and the serializability rule give enough orientation for most callers.

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 needed to compensate, but it only mentions 'version' and an input hash that is not an actual schema property. It does not explain method_id, input, valid_on, or context, leaving the agent without parameter-level guidance beyond schema names and constraints.

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 ('Exécute directement') and resource ('méthode pure publiée par get_methodology'), and adds key selection details: version, JSON Schema, input hash, and explicit refusal of non-serializable contexts. This clearly differentiates it from get_methodology: get publishes, run executes.

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 gives a clear when-not: methods requiring non-serializable context such as the Tempo calendar are explicitly refused. It also implies that only methods published by get_methodology are eligible. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly say when to prefer siblings like simulate.

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