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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the output is standalone printable A4 HTML, supports four templates, and reuses create_quote's calculations and legal mentions, but it does not clarify persistence, permissions, side effects, validation behavior, or the exact return shape.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no padding. The key output format and scope are stated first, followed by template and calculation details.

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?

The tool has six parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema. The description states the output artifact but does not explain return format, persistence, required parameter semantics, or when to use it versus siblings, leaving significant gaps for a complex schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only names the template options, which are already present in the enum, and vaguely references calculations/legal mentions; it does not explain company, client, lines, quote, accent_color, or nested required fields.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Génère un devis HTML A4 autonome et imprimable'. It also names the supported templates and explicitly links the tool's calculations and legal notices to the sibling create_quote, so an agent can distinguish it from create_quote without opening the schema.

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 by 'HTML A4 autonome et imprimable': use it when a printable HTML quote is needed. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose render_quote_html over create_quote or get_legal_mentions, and it gives no exclusions or alternatives.

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