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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it states the output includes reasons, reports whether online subscription is open, and notes it mirrors the website 'Quel forfait ?' rules (deterministic behavior). It omits auth/rate-limit details, but those are minor for a read-only tool.

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?

Single dense paragraph but front-loaded with the core action and output before the usage examples and multi-profile instruction, so no reader is left wondering what the tool does. The source URL and quoted example phrasings are slightly verbose but each sentence contributes routing or output information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description correctly focuses on purpose, usage scenarios, and the per-profile workflow for a 5-required-param tool. It could be marginally more complete by noting when to prefer compare_plans, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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% with all five enums documented, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only restates that inputs are 'cinq réponses sur les usages,' adding no syntax or value semantics beyond what the schema's enum descriptions already provide. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (recommande), a specific resource (un forfait Comontel), and the basis (cinq réponses sur les usages), plus the extra output (raisons + souscription en ligne ouverte). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling readers like get_plan, get_plans, and compare_plans, which merely fetch or contrast existing plans.

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?

Gives concrete trigger scenarios in quotes ('un indépendant, un commercial, une équipe terrain…') and an explicit multi-profile workflow: call once per profile then calculate_company_price. It lacks exclusions relative to other siblings (e.g. when to prefer compare_plans), so it is clear context without full when-not routing.

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