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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the payload contents an agent will receive — pricing, lead time, included services, public page and order link — which is meaningful 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, then a compact field list. No filler, no repetition of the title or annotations.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with full annotations, the description covers purpose and the shape of the return value, compensating for the absent output schema. Only the retrieval workflow (list then detail) and error behavior remain unstated, which is a minor gap.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself giving an example value ('royaume-uni'). The description adds nothing about slug format, valid values, or lookup behavior, so the 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Donne le détail') and resource ('d'une juridiction'), then enumerates the concrete fields returned (forme de société, prix, délai, prestations, lien de commande). It is clearly distinct from siblings like lister_juridictions or creer_dossier, though it never names them explicitly.

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: the required slug parameter suggests a single-record lookup after a listing call, but the description never states when to prefer this over globalstart_lister_juridictions or globalstart_devis, nor what happens with an unknown slug. An agent can infer the flow but not confirm it.

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