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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the shape of the returned content (duration, question counts, per-part breakdown, plus links to exercises), which matters since no output schema exists.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the subject and packs the scope (duration, question count, 7 parts, exercise links) without any filler. Every clause carries 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?

For a static, parameterless reference tool this is close to complete: it says what content is returned and that links to exercises are included. It does not state the response format or language of the content, which is a minor residual gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 names a specific verb ('Décrit') and a precise resource (the TOEIC Listening & Reading format), and enumerates exactly what it covers: duration, question count, and the content of the 7 parts. It is clearly distinct from score_toeic and test_toeic_gratuit, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the potentially overlapping guides_toeic.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for questions about the exam's structure. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over guides_toeic, nor any exclusion or prerequisite noted.

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