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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the tool creates a draft and rejects publish attempts, but fails to describe side effects (e.g., does the draft persist?), authentication needs, or return format beyond 'texte_brut + html'.

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 extremely concise: three sentences covering condition, action, and critical warning. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, well front-loaded with the use case.

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 14 parameters, no required ones, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not guide parameter usage, explain return values, or outline workflow consequences (e.g., how to proceed with the draft). The tool is complex but the description treats it as simple.

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 only 7% (only 'dpe' described). The description adds no information about parameters, leaving 13 parameters unexplained. It does not clarify which are essential, how they relate to the output, or any constraints beyond the schema's enum.

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 specific verb 'rédiger' and resource 'brouillon d'annonce de location'. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing it only creates drafts and explicitly prohibits publishing, which is unique among listed sibling tools.

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 specifies when to use ('QUAND un bien vacant doit être mis en location') and explicitly warns against attempting publication ('aucune publication...', 'publier=true est refusé'). However, it does not mention alternative tools or scenarios when not to use it beyond the publish restriction.

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