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

The description discloses the flow: the request is relayed to a seller or installer who recontacts the user, the tool requires explicit consent, and dry_run avoids sending. It also notes the tool is free and non-binding, and clarifies that Chaletiste does not sell chalets. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations, which already flag non-read-only and open-world behavior.

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 moderately long but each sentence earns its place: purpose, consent conditions, dry_run, and cost/free nature. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids fluff. Slightly verbose due to the repeated emphasis on consent, but still appropriately concise for a safety-sensitive tool.

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 tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and a non-read-only action, the description covers essential context: the process flow, prerequisites, dry_run option, and non-binding nature. It does not detail the exact response format, but for a side-effect action this is acceptable. Could elaborate on what happens if dry_run is false, but the overall picture is complete enough.

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 100%, so all parameters are self-documented. The description reinforces the consent requirement and dry_run usage but does not add new per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 ('Transmet une demande de devis pour un modèle'), identifies the resource (a model), and clarifies the mediation role of Chaletiste. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools (search, compare, check_permit) by focusing on the quote request action.

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?

Explicitly states when to call the tool: only if the human user explicitly asked, provided their coordinates, and accepted their transmission. It also specifies that without consent the tool must not be called, and recommends dry_run for validation. This is strong, practical usage guidance.

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