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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the specific datasets returned and the time scope ('derniers millésimes', 'données Projet Ariane'), which goes well 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, well-structured sentence: the verb and resource come first, followed by a colon and a compact enumeration of the returned content. Every part adds information and there is no filler.

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?

The description enumerates the main return content well, but there is no output schema to fall back on and the schema marks 0 required parameters. The description does not clarify that id or slug should normally be supplied to retrieve a specific fiche, nor what happens if neither is provided. This leaves a real invocation ambiguity.

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 100%, and both id and slug are already documented with their meaning and source (rechercher_formation). The main description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond clarifying that the tool returns a formation fiche, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Retourne la fiche d'une formation' and lists the exact contents returned (établissement, diplôme, statistiques Parcoursup, insertion, métiers visés). This makes the tool's purpose concrete and differentiates it from sibling tools like fiche_ecole or fiche_metier, which target different entities.

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 description implies this is the detail-view counterpart to rechercher_formation, and the parameter descriptions mention that id/slug are provided by rechercher_formation. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over a sibling or of the condition 'use after a search'.

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