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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by stating it returns verified figures from Izifete data, defines the scope (France, event types), and clarifies it outputs numerical benchmarks. This goes beyond the safety annotations and sets correct expectations.

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 well-structured: it opens with the explicit use case, lists example topics, states the output source, and ends with clear exclusions. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy, and the length is justified by the need for differentiation.

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?

Given a simple single-parameter tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers input expectations, output type, domain scope, and exclusions, providing sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly and understand what to expect.

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 only parameter 'question' is already thoroughly described in the schema with examples. The description does not add extra semantic detail about the parameter's format or constraints, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 the tool provides advice and budget estimates for organizing events in France, with specific resource types (weddings, birthdays, etc.) and topics (budget, quantities, timing, provider selection). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like search and conseils_prestataire, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance (when user is organizing an event in France and asking for advice) and when-not-to-use guidance (not for finding specific providers, not for professionals), naming the alternative tools. This fully covers decision-making criteria.

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