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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description adds real value by stating it returns phone numbers and links and creates no request — the agent knows to hand the contact info to the user rather than expect a submission. It does not describe exactly how many advisors or what the link payload looks like, but that is minor for an info-only tool.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first states what the tool provides, the second pre-empts the most likely misinterpretation (that it submits a request). Front-loaded and waste-free.

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 no parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything the agent needs: what is returned (phone, links), that no state changes, and that the user completes the request themselves. Nothing essential is missing.

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 per the baseline a 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate on the input side.

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?

Names the concrete resource (un conseiller Partner Construction, a BTP décennale broker) and the concrete action (obtenir téléphone + liens, ou demander un devis). It also states the negative scope up front — 'Ne crée AUCUNE demande' — which cleanly separates it from creer_ma_demande.

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 use case is clear: an artisan who wants to reach an advisor or get a quote routes here. The explicit exclusion ('ne crée AUCUNE demande … l'artisan fait sa demande lui-même') tells the agent when not to use it, though the sibling creer_ma_demande is not named directly, leaving the cross-reference implicit.

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