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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the closing sentence 'Lecture seule : ne crée ni ne modifie rien' largely restates structured data. What it does add beyond annotations is the ordering guarantee (most recent first) and the returned field list, but no pagination limits, account scoping caveats, or failure modes are covered.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by the routing guidance. Slightly wasteful only in the trailing read-only sentence, which duplicates the annotation hints.

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 simple read-only listing tool with an output schema present, everything an agent needs is covered: what it returns, ordering, and which sibling to call next. The field enumeration mildly duplicates the output schema but leaves no functional gap.

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 the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema with default and 1-50 bounds, so the description reasonably leaves it alone. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema.

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 (Liste) and resource (documents de location générés dans le compte) plus the fields returned and the sort order (du plus récent au plus ancien). This clearly separates it from get_download_link and generate_document, which the description explicitly names.

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?

Gives explicit downstream routing: use it to retrieve a document_id before calling get_download_link, or before updating a document with generate_document. That is a concrete when-to-use condition tied to named sibling tools, not an implied one.

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