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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by enumerating the guide's contents, which is consistent with a static informational tool, though it does not describe the returned format beyond that.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists content areas. It is efficiently sized, though the parenthetical 'dont chemisier' is slightly cryptic and adds minor ambiguity.

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 that the tool has no parameters, is read-only and idempotent per annotations, and has an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly. It names the main content categories, including citation rules, which is important for proper use.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameters exist and the description does not need to clarify parameter semantics.

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 identifies the tool as a map/guide for ScoreLook assistants and lists the covered areas (pages, hubs, editorial, citation rules). This clearly distinguishes it from content-specific sibling tools, though it lacks an explicit verb and relies on the noun 'Carte'.

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 phrase 'pour les assistants' implies the tool is meant for assistant orientation, and the content list suggests when it is useful, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus sibling tools. It provides implied guidance rather than clear exclusions or alternatives.

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