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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's added value is enumerating which data categories are returned, which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about behavior when the code is invalid or the server is unknown, nor whether every listed section is always present.

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 sentence with the scope front-loaded ('Tout ce que Lobbydex sait d'un serveur') followed by a compact field enumeration. The list is somewhat long but each item conveys real returned content rather than filler.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, enumerating the returned data categories is the most useful thing the description can do, and it does that. Missing are the failure/empty-result case and any note that this complements the search tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'code' parameter is well documented in the schema itself, including both accepted formats (abc123 or the cfx.re/join/abc123 URL). The description adds no parameter information whatsoever, so the schema does all the work and the baseline of 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 makes clear this is a full-profile lookup for a single FiveM server and enumerates the resources involved (joueurs, rang, type, accès, Discord, événements, équipe). The verb is implicit ('tout ce que Lobbydex sait'), so it reads as a noun phrase rather than an explicit retrieval action, and it never contrasts itself with the sibling 'chercher_serveurs' search tool.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as 'chercher_serveurs', and no stated precondition (e.g. that a valid Cfx.re code from a prior search is required). The agent must infer from 'un serveur' (singular) that this is a per-server detail call rather than a discovery call.

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