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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's burden is lighter; it still adds the authentication requirement (email or API key) that the annotations do not convey. It does not describe error behavior when the reference is unknown, which is a minor gap for an otherwise safe 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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste. The resource and returned fields are front-loaded, and the auth prerequisite follows immediately.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields, and the auth constraint is covered. The only thing an agent might still wonder about is failure behavior for an invalid/unknown reference.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds a real clarification: the email is *required* at dossier level (or an API key must be supplied), which the schema's required list alone does not convey. It gives no format hint beyond what the schema's reference example already shows.

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?

States a specific verb ('Renvoie l'état') and resource ('dossier') plus the exact fields returned (statut, étape courante, avancement, prochaine étape). It clearly differs from the create/quote/list siblings, 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?

The prerequisite ('L'adresse e-mail du dossier (ou une clé API) est exigée') is stated, which helps the agent prepare the call. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to the alternative sibling tools.

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