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

Beyond the read-only annotation, the description discloses crucial behavioral traits: the estimate is only a starting price, must never be presented as a firm offer, must not invent figures or dates, and `aDireAuVisiteur` plus `suite.lien` must be rendered as-is. It also explains the multi-turn flow via the `questionSuivante` field, which is exactly the context an agent needs.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then uses a numbered question order and explicit warnings. Despite being dense, every sentence carries operational or safety-relevant information for a multi-turn estimation tool.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description still names the key output fields (`questionSuivante`, `aDireAuVisiteur`, `suite.lien`) and explains how to use them. It also covers the required question sequence and safety constraints, making the definition complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is already 100%, so parameter formats and enums are well documented. The description adds procedural meaning by specifying which parameters to ask for first, which are conditional on an ongoing contract, and that current premium should be omitted rather than estimated.

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 states a very specific action: estimating the annual/monthly starting price of décennale insurance for French BTP artisans and companies, compared with their current payment. The audience, geography, provider, and comparative scope make the tool clearly distinct from siblings such as creating a request, contacting an adviser, or searching content.

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 gives a clear mandatory first question (`situation_assurance`) and a conditional sequence for the remaining questions, which is strong operational guidance. It does not explicitly say when to prefer or avoid sibling tools such as `contacter_un_conseiller` or `creer_ma_demande`, so it lacks full alternative routing.

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