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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the schema: the hours are read live ('lus en direct'), the lunchtime closure ('coupure de midi') is accounted for, and the open/closed status is computed for the current moment, plus upcoming exceptional closures. It stops short of describing response format or caching/freshness guarantees.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action and target first, then enumerates the payload. The enumeration is long but every item is distinct information an agent may need, and the emphasis on 'À JOUR' / 'lus en direct' is placed where it matters.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must characterize the return value — and it does by enumerating the fields delivered (address, live hours, open/closed status, closures, phone, services, legal notice). What is missing is any sense of response shape/structure or failure behavior, but for a zero-param read tool this is close to sufficient.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a parameterless tool applies; the description correctly does not invent inputs.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Obtenir les informations du magasin physique CADORAMA à Saint-Quentin') and then enumerates exactly which data items are returned (address, hours, open/closed status, closures, phone, services, legal notice). This makes it trivially distinguishable from the e-commerce siblings (search_products, create_checkout, check_payment).

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description is written entirely around the physical store's information, so an agent can infer it should be used for store-location/hours questions and that no sibling covers that need. However, there is no explicit 'use this when... / do not use for...' framing or any pointer to an alternative.

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