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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it names the exact output behaviors (status 'blocked' on TEMPORAL_CONFLICT or a blocked engine, plus a stale-rule warning) and gives a concrete rule example (CGI.200-A.PFU_30PCT since 2026-01-01).

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?

Three compact sentences that front-load the purpose before input and output details. Information density is high with little filler, though the final clause carrying the concrete rule example is somewhat packed.

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 one array parameter, no output schema and no annotation detail on returns, the description carries the output burden and handles it by naming the blocked/conflict/stale-rule outcomes. It stops short of describing the full response shape or how multiple conflicts/warnings are aggregated, but it is adequate for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It enumerates the item fields (moteur, identifiant de trace, statut, version de règles, résultat), mapping well onto engine, traceId, status, rulesVersion and result, which genuinely helps. But it adds no types, formats, or semantics beyond the field names, so it only partially covers the gap.

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 and resource: 'Contrôle la cohérence de plusieurs résultats Marcel', and outlines both input and output, which is far more than a name restatement. It is implicitly distinguishable from its simulation siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them (e.g. compare_certified).

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 implied by the described input (a list of results) and output (blocked status / stale-rule warning), so an agent can infer this runs as a consistency check over results. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus the sibling simulation tools, nor any prerequisite or sequencing guidance.

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