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

Annotations already declare that this is a safe, idempotent read operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the behavioral note that a price must be read at its date, implying versioning context, but does not mention return format, pagination, or error behavior. With annotations covering safety, this is an acceptable but not rich disclosure.

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 compact sentence listing the returned data types followed by a short usage warning. Every element earns its place and the core behavior is front-loaded.

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?

Complete for a zero-param, read-only tool. It states what is returned (dates, file paths, regulatory calendar) and when to call it. Lack of an output schema means the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately, though it could be more explicit about the structure of the regulatory calendar.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on outputs rather than inputs and does not need to document parameters.

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+resource: returns the date of each relevé (survey/reading), file paths (JSON, CSV), describing page, and the regulatory calendar. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like prix_du_modele (a price) and classement_d_un_test (a ranking). However, the term 'relevé' and the connection to the IA regulation is somewhat narrow, lacking explicit differentiation from the pricing tools.

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?

Gives a clear directive: 'À appeler avant de citer un prix' (call before citing a price), which sets context for use with the sibling prix_du_modele. It does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the conditional guidance is explicit and useful.

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