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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'Retourne la liste' does signal a read-only retrieval. It also usefully discloses provenance (service-public.gouv.fr, economie.gouv.fr, autoentrepreneurs.org), which builds trust in regulatory content. However, it says nothing about whether results are static/fixed, how they are structured, or how the conditional parameter affects the returned list.

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 identifies the resource first and the supporting sources second, with no filler. It is efficient, though slightly more space could have been used to explain the flag without bloat.

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?

For a simple one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the what and the source provenance adequately. It leaves the sole parameter's effect and the shape of the returned list unexplained, which is a meaningful gap given the 0% schema coverage.

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?

There is one optional boolean (franchise_293b) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what setting it to true or false does. The mention of 'franchise en base de TVA' as a source domain is a faint hint at the concept but does not tell the agent that this flag toggles inclusion of the 293 B VAT-exemption mention.

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 verb and resource ('Retourne la liste des mentions obligatoires d'un devis professionnel français') and even enumerates the source domains, so an agent can immediately tell this is a static legal-reference lookup rather than a quote-building tool. It does not explicitly name the siblings create_quote or render_quote_html, but the purpose is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, no prerequisites, and no reference to the sibling tools it should be combined with (e.g., before create_quote). The agent must infer usage from the topic alone.

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