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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the exact content of the returned record (description, montant, profils éligibles, liens officiels) and the data source (Projet Ariane), which goes beyond the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the key content without any filler. It is concise and efficient.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description is complete for an agent to invoke correctly. It tells what the tool returns and from where, and lists the fields included, which is sufficient for a retrieval tool.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter slug, including an example. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states, so 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 clearly states the tool returns the complete record of a financial aid, listing the specific content (description, amount, eligible profiles, official links). This distinguishes it from sibling fiche tools for schools, formations, and métiers, which are separate resources.

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?

While the description doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, its purpose is unambiguous: it is the tool for retrieving a full financial aid record by slug. The sibling list includes rechercher_aides, which implies this is for direct lookup of a known aid, but the description itself doesn't mention that contrast.

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