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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the result varies based on the presence of a syndic argument, and the tariff is only returned if it has been verified on a document published by the syndic itself. This discloses data provenance and conditional availability beyond the annotations.

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 short conditional sentences, front-loaded with the no-argument case followed by the named case. Every clause earns its place, with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers both invocation modes and the key verification condition. It could be more explicit about what happens when a syndic name is provided but no verified tariff exists, but overall it gives an agent enough to call the tool 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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter 'syndic' is described as an optional name. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining what happens when the parameter is omitted versus provided, and by stating the verification condition for the returned tariff, going beyond the schema's generic label.

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 states what the tool does with a specific conditional structure: without an argument it returns key figures on pre-état daté and état daté fees for French syndics; with a syndic name it returns that syndic's verified pre-état daté fee. It identifies the resource and behavior precisely, but does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling tool etatdate_tarifs.

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 provides clear input-dependent usage context ('sans argument' vs 'avec un nom de syndic'), which helps an agent decide whether to pass a parameter. However, it does not mention when to choose this tool over sibling alternatives like etatdate_tarifs, nor does it state any exclusions or alternative routing.

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