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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description confirms a read operation with 'Retourne'. It adds useful context about the data source ('données Projet Ariane') and the fields returned, but does not disclose behaviors such as not-found handling, response format, or any limitations.

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 names the action, resource, and key content areas. Every part earns its place, and there is no repetition of the title or unrelated detail.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it states what is returned, the source, and the main content categories. However, it leaves sibling differentiation and usage context implicit, so an agent might need additional reasoning to choose between this and similarly named tools.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'slug', including a helpful example ('infirmier, developpeur-web'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Retourne') and resource ('la fiche complète d'un métier'), enumerating the content covered (description, rémunération, marché de l'emploi, formations associées). This makes clear it is a single-record fetch rather than a search, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as 'rechercher_metier' or 'fiche_aide'.

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 intended use—retrieving a complete job sheet for a known slug from Projet Ariane—is implied by the description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'rechercher_metier' or 'ou_se_former'. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned.

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