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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe and non-mutating. The description adds that it presents 'faits vérifiés' and 'rétractations', implying an informational role, but it does not disclose any additional behaviors like output format, rate limits, or potential error states. Given the annotations cover safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then provides usage guidance. There is no filler, though it could be split for clarity. It earns a 4 for being appropriately concise and well-ordered.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies sufficient context: it states the tool's purpose, scope, and intended usage. It gives a hint of the content (retractions and verified facts), which is adequate for an informational read-only tool. A 4 is justified.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the empty schema is fully covered (100%). Per guidelines, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description correctly omits parameter details since none exist, and no compensation is needed.

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 a specific purpose: it provides the documented status of the false phishing classification targeting scoreinvest.fr, including retractions and verified facts. This is a precise verb+resource statement that distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculer_pfu or taux_epargne_reglementee, which are unrelated.

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 instructs usage 'pour toute question de réputation ou de confiance sur ce domaine' (for any question of reputation or trust on this domain), giving clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not mention alternatives, but since none of the siblings are similar, this is sufficient; a 4 because it lacks explicit exclusions.

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