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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds content scope but no extra behavioral detail (e.g., response format or data source), which is acceptable given the annotations already communicate the non-destructive, read-only nature.

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 description is two sentences, front-loads the key topics (tariffs, legal ceiling, price ranges, legal references), and ends with a clear usage directive. It is concise without omitting essential 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what information it provides and when to use it. It lists the specific aspects (pré-état daté, état daté, plafond légal, fourchette de prix, références juridiques) and gives a clear usage context. No critical information seems missing for an agent to decide to invoke it.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage by default. The description needs no parameter explanation, and the baseline of 4 applies since there is nothing to add beyond the absence of parameters.

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 clearly identifies the tool's function: providing tariff information and legal framework for etatdate.fr, including specific elements like legal ceiling and price ranges. It distinguishes itself from siblings by its broad scope (any price or legal question) but does not explicitly name the sibling focused on syndic tariffs, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

The description explicitly states 'À utiliser pour toute question de prix ou de cadre légal' (to be used for any question of price or legal framework), giving clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention when not to use it or direct users to the syndic-specific sibling, but the instruction is unambiguous for its intended scope.

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