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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing what the returned journey contains (regulatory questionnaire, entry-into-relationship document, adequacy report) and that these precede any signature, telling the agent this is a multi-step pre-contractual flow rather than an immediate transaction.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return value and followed by the one piece of context an agent needs. No filler or repetition of structured fields.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description does what is needed: it names the returned artifact (an address/URL) and explains what that artifact leads to. Nothing required to invoke or interpret the result is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single 'scpi' parameter documented as 'Nom ou identifiant de la SCPI'. The description only restates this as 'pour une SCPI donnée' and adds no detail on accepted identifier formats, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the URL of the online SCPI Select subscription journey for a given SCPI. This is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (fiche_scpi, comparer_scpi, rechercher_scpi, acquisitions_recentes, mouvements_prix), none of which return an action link, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when a user wants to actually subscribe rather than view data. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative for users who only want information rather than a subscription path.

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