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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral details: profiles are rechecked to remove non-public ones, selection is temporary and not saved, and photos are already displayed so URLs should not be copied. This goes beyond the annotations and provides useful operational context, though it omits edge cases like error handling.

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 long but every sentence carries meaning. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides constraints, exclusions, and behavioral notes. It could be slightly more concise, but the structure is logical and no sentence is redundant. It earns a 4 for being well-organized despite its length.

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?

The tool is a simple display operation with an output schema present, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers all key aspects: what it does, when to use it (after search/fetch), what it does not do, behavioral notes (profile recheck, local selection), and a specific instruction to avoid copying photo URLs. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it 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?

The schema already describes the 'ids' parameter fully (1-10 exact identifiers from search/fetch, in desired order), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a constraint: the order should follow the search order ('dans l'ordre de recherche'), which is more specific than the schema's 'ordre souhaité'. This extra nuance adds value beyond the schema, so a 4 is warranted.

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 a specific verb ('afficher'), resource ('prestataires'), and the context ('Après search ou fetch'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from search by saying it does not replace search and uses only IDs returned by search/fetch. This makes it unambiguous which tool to use for displaying results.

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 explicitly says to use only identifiers returned by search or fetch, and states it is not a substitute for search (no availability, proximity, pricing, or qualification checks). It also specifies what it does not do (no email or request sent) and clarifies the selection is local and not persisted. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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