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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a valuable domain invariant beyond those annotations: online termination never automatically removes notice periods, commitments, fees, or supporting documents. It also communicates the analysis dimensions the tool applies, which helps the agent predict how the tool will treat the case.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first sentence scopes the analytical dimensions, the second adds a key behavioral rule. It is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 tool taking a very rich 25-field facts object, the description provides the analytic axes but not enough operational guidance about how to populate the facts or what routing outcome to expect. The existence of an output schema covers return values, but the overall definition remains minimal given the complexity of the input.

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% and the description gives no direct guidance on the 'facts' object or the 'as_of' parameter. The listed legal dimensions only loosely map to the schema fields, which does not compensate for the complete absence of parameter documentation. An agent must rely solely on mostly self-explanatory property names and enums.

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 uses a specific verb ('Distingue') and lists the subscription-related aspects it separates: electronic termination, contract conditions, tacit renewal, notification proof, and conditional refund. The title reinforces the resource ('abonnement impossible à résilier'). It does not explicitly name a sibling for differentiation, but the tool name and title make the subscription scope clear.

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 for subscription cases is implied by the tool name, title, and the listed legal dimensions, but the description never states 'use this when...' and does not contrast it with sibling routing tools like route_guarantee_case or route_marketplace_case. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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