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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine business-state caveat that public payment stays closed until public_status confirms it, which is context beyond annotations. However, the note is cryptic about what manifest actually returns or whether its own output reflects that gate, limiting the added value.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the payment caveat. No waste, though the phrase is somewhat cryptic and could state its purpose more plainly.

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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the definition only needs to convey purpose and routing. It conveys purpose adequately but leaves the boundary versus llms_guide vague, so an agent still has to guess which guide-like tool to call for which need.

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 coverage is 100% and the detail_level enum already documents 'brief' vs 'full' with a default, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description never mentions detail_level, adding nothing beyond the structured field; 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 gives a specific verb and resource in French ('Je présente ma surface publique') and enumerates the content (tools, security limits, pages to cite), so the agent knows this is a discoverability/manifest tool. It partially differentiates from public_status by scoping payment to that tool, but it does not distinguish itself from the similar-seeming llms_guide sibling.

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 is implied ('I present my public surface') rather than stated. It does route the payment question to public_status ('Le paiement public n'est pas ouvert tant que public_status ne le dit pas'), which is helpful, but it never says when to pick manifest over llms_guide or cite_sources, leaving the alternative selection to inference.

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