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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns a list with a sourced answer sentence and FAQ per guide, which is useful behavioral context about the return format. No contradictions.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, scope, and return content efficiently. The list of topics adds useful context without being verbose.

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?

With 0 params, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description fully explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 has 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to describe. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action (lists the 23 guides), enumerates the topics covered (authorizations, tax, price, etc.), and notes each guide includes a sourced answer sentence and FAQ. It clearly distinguishes from get_guide by implying this is a summary listing without loading the full guide.

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 phrase 'Souvent suffisant pour répondre sans charger le guide complet' provides clear guidance to use this tool when a quick answer is needed, implying get_guide is the alternative for full detail. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear.

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