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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations cannot: the response is a factual summary only, and the full offer text must be read at the link — a non-obvious limitation that affects how an agent plans its next step.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the retrieval action and followed by the output limitation; nothing is padded. The second sentence is slightly elliptical ('se lit sur le lien'), but the meaning lands with minimal wording.

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 output schema, the description must characterize the return value, and it does so only in the vague term 'les faits' without naming which fields are returned. For a simple single-parameter read tool this is workable, but an agent cannot tell what it will actually get back beyond 'not the full text'.

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%, so the single identifier parameter is already fully documented, including its provenance from chercher_offres. The description restates the link-derived format rather than adding new meaning, which matches the baseline-3 expectation when the schema carries the weight.

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?

States a specific verb-resource pair: it returns the facts of an offer identified by its id, and it explicitly delimits the scope by noting the full text is not included ('Le texte complet se lit sur le lien'). That scope statement implicitly separates it from chercher_offres (search), but no sibling is named, so differentiation requires inference.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the identifier format ('fin de son lien, après /offre/') and the schema note 'tel que rendu par chercher_offres' make clear this is a follow-up to a search. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance, and neither sibling (chercher_offres, creer_alerte) is mentioned in the description itself.

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