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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: 'La trame reste générique et aucune expédition n'est possible,' confirming the tool produces no real-world side effects and stays in template space. No contradiction with 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?

Two compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause earns its place, though the second sentence could have been used to clarify parameters instead of restating genericness.

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?

An output schema exists to cover return values, and annotations carry the safety profile. But with 0% parameter coverage in both schema and description, the tool is incomplete for correct invocation — as_of and template_id semantics are entirely undefined.

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 must compensate for the undocumented parameters, but it never explains as_of or template_id — despite template_id having an informative default ('delivery_execution_then_resolution'). An agent can't infer parameter semantics or formats from either source.

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: 'Retourne les conditions, avertissements et sources d'une trame ScoreConso.' The note that the template 'reste générique' and that 'aucune expédition n'est possible' helps distinguish it from the many route_*/score_* sibling tools, though it never names a specific alternative.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the routing, scoring, or lookup siblings. It doesn't state prerequisites, conditions for selection, or exclusions — an agent must infer its role from the name and title alone.

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