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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: no personal data in the URL, the user verifies via SMS+email, and the agent must not book on the user's behalf — a real constraint not expressible in annotations. It does not describe URL lifetime/expiry or what happens if an invalid slot id is passed.

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?

Front-loads the core action and is given bilingually, which doubles length but each version is tight. The French and English passages are largely duplicative, a minor cost, but no sentence is wasted.

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 read-only URL-builder with a fully documented 4-param schema and no output schema, the description covers the action, the two URL outcomes, the privacy property, and the agent's responsibility. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter including mode's enum is already documented in the schema. The description adds the conceptual distinction between registered and directory lawyers but no per-parameter syntax beyond schema, so 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 and resource (génère l'URL dikoo.fr) and precisely distinguishes two booking flows (registered lawyer vs. directory lawyer), which no sibling tool does — creneaux_disponibles returns slots, this one builds the booking URL.

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 says to always hand the link to the user and never book on their behalf, and the mention of mode/slot context implies this follows creneaux_disponibles or rechercher_avocats. When-to-use and when-not-to-act are both stated.

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