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

The description adds statements like 'Je n'invente jamais un paiement ouvert' and 'Aucun chemin opérateur', which go beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). However, these statements are cryptic and not explained. The claim that it returns only public commercial status adds a scope constraint not covered by annotations, providing some extra value, but it remains ambiguous.

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 brief with three short sentences, but the content is vague and poorly structured. The core purpose is only implied, and the statements about payments and operator paths are tangential. It is concise in length but lacks clarity and effective organization.

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?

Despite having no parameters and an output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool actually does. An agent cannot determine when to call it or what kind of status it returns. The description is too vague to be considered complete, even with the output schema providing return structure.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. No additional semantic clarification is required.

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 'Statut commercial public seulement' essentially restates the tool name without specifying a clear action or resource. It mentions 'commercial status' but does not define what that entails or what the tool returns. The additional statements about payments and operator paths do not clarify the core purpose, and the description fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like get_piece_hub or recommend_look.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'public seulement' hints at a public context but does not specify conditions or exclusions. No alternatives are mentioned, and the description provides no actionable usage context.

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