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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the return content (each slot carries its modes and a dikoo.fr booking link) and the 14-day hard cap. It does not mention result-size limits or pagination, which is the only remaining gap.

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?

Each language version is tight and front-loads the scoping constraint and the alternative. The cost is that the entire text is duplicated in French and English, roughly doubling the token footprint for an agent that only needs one language, but no sentence is filler within a given language.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by describing what each returned slot contains (modes, booking link) and the maximum query window. Combined with the explicit alternative-tool routing, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 the schema already documents avocat, du, au and the visio/cabinet enum. The description restates the 14-day cap and the modes but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource: bookable consultation slots for a DIKOO-registered lawyer, over a bounded period, with the per-slot payload (modes, booking link) spelled out. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling lien_rendez_vous by naming the registered vs directory-only lawyer condition.

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 an explicit routing rule with the selecting condition: use this for a registered lawyer, use lien_rendez_vous for a directory-only lawyer. The 14-day maximum window is also stated as a hard usage constraint, so an agent knows the valid call envelope before invoking.

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