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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it states the result is passed 'sans le modifier' (without modification) and, without MCP Apps support, it returns the same structured result as text. This gives the agent knowledge of input-output symmetry and fallback behavior, which annotations do not cover.

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 compact: two sentences for the core action and workflow plus one for the fallback. Every sentence carries necessary information—what to pass, from which tools, how to pass it, and what happens without MCP Apps. No filler or redundancy is present.

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?

Given the tool has one complex parameter but a rich output schema, the description provides the essential workflow context, source tool list, and fallback behavior. The output schema exists, so the return format is already defined elsewhere. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without needing additional guidance.

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 has zero description coverage for the single parameter 'result', so the description must compensate fully. It does so by specifying that the parameter must be the structuredContent from one of the named routing tools and must be passed unmodified. This adds critical provenance and handling instructions beyond the raw schema definition.

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 clearly states that the tool renders a complete result produced by a specific list of routing tools into a cockpit, using the verb 'Rend' and naming the exact source tools. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like the routing tools themselves and other utility tools such as scoreconso_build_action_plan. The title reinforces this purpose, so an agent can understand it is a display/rendering tool.

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 explicitly tells the agent to first call the appropriate routing tool, then pass its structuredContent unmodified to this tool. It lists the six routing tools it depends on, making the when and how clear. It also covers a fallback behavior when MCP Apps is not supported, leaving no ambiguity about usage context.

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