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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds a meaningful behavioral constraint: 'Le paiement public n'est pas ouvert tant que public_status ne le dit pas' (public payment is not open until public_status says so). This clarifies that the manifest does not imply payment availability, which is useful context beyond the annotations. 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?

The description consists of two short, information-dense sentences. The primary purpose is front-loaded ('Je présente ma surface publique'), followed by the security note and the payment condition. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place. Ideal concision.

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 manifest tool with a single parameter and an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers the essential aspects: what it presents, the read-only nature, and a critical business rule (payment gating). It does not list the specific tools or limits, but since the output schema presumably provides that structure, the description suffices. One could argue it could detail more, but overall it's complete enough for an agent to understand its role.

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 describes the single parameter detail_level with an enum (brief/full) and a default, so the parameter is fully self-documenting. The description adds no additional meaning for this parameter, which is acceptable since the schema coverage is effectively 100% for the parameter semantics (even though schema_description_coverage is 0%, the enum and default fully define it). Baseline 3 applies.

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 the tool presents 'ma surface publique' (my public surface) including tools, security limits, and pages to cite. This is a specific verb + resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like public_status (which checks payment status) and llms_guide (likely a guide). It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies usage context by stating that public payment is not open until public_status says so, hinting that this manifest is for understanding the surface rather than checking payment state. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., 'use this to see the public surface' or 'use public_status for payment availability'). The guidance is implicit rather than directive.

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