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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Ne transmet rien et n'envoie aucun courrier' (transmits nothing and sends no mail), which clarifies side-effect-free behavior beyond the annotations. This is a meaningful addition.

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 main action and immediately clarifying the non-transmission behavior. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description covers the core behavior and side-effect-free guarantee. It doesn't explain what the action plan contains or how it relates to sibling tools like scoreconso_route_case, but for a read-only, idempotent builder with an output schema, this is largely complete.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter semantics. The description mentions 'faits confirmés' which maps to the 'facts' parameter, but it doesn't explain the 'as_of' parameter or the structure of DeliveryFacts. With 0% coverage, the description should compensate more, but the 'facts' parameter is at least referenced. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema is self-explanatory for the main parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Construit') and resource ('l'ordre des démarches documentaires') and clarifies it is based on confirmed facts. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on building an action plan rather than routing, scoring, or checking deadlines. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 usage: use this tool when you have confirmed facts and need to build the order of documentary steps. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like scoreconso_route_case or scoreconso_score_dossier. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but explicit exclusions are missing.

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