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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the tool returns request status plus artisan details, never returns contact information, and is scoped to requests created by the same API key. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or error conditions, but 'consulte' strongly implies a read.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose and returned data come first, followed by privacy scope and API-key restriction. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description usefully names the return fields (company name, message, indicative price, delay, average rating) and privacy limitation. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool and understand the response shape, though it does not describe edge cases or empty results.

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%, and the single requestId parameter is already documented in the schema as the identifier returned by create_request. The description adds no additional format or constraint details for requestId, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Consulte le statut d'une demande Fixou'. It also lists the returned artisan fields, making the tool's purpose concrete. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the read-only 'consulte' framing is distinct from create_request.

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?

It clearly indicates the tool is used to check request status and artisan responses, and adds an important usage constraint: an API key can only consult requests it created. It does not name alternatives, but for this retrieval operation no direct alternative is apparent.

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