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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses output format (HTML printable, PDF via API), formatting for window envelopes, and a safety check. It does not mention side effects like saving or updating, but for a document generation tool this is sufficient.

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 concise (three sentences in original French) and front-loaded with the condition. Every sentence adds value: prerequisite, action, output, formatting, address guidance, safety rule.

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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and output format but omits explanations for several parameters (e.g., trimestre_nouveau, lieu). Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 low (17%). The description adds meaning for two key parameters: locataire_adresse (postal) and logement_adresse (property), and mentions zip code validation. However, other parameters like trimestres, lieu, bailleur_adresse are not explained.

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 notifies the tenant of an IRL revision via a letter. It uses the verb 'notifier' and identifies the resource (courrier de révision IRL). It distinguishes from sibling 'irl_revision_loyer' by stating to calculate first with that tool.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context ('QUAND la révision IRL est calculée et qu'il faut la NOTIFIER') and a prerequisite ('Calculez d'abord avec irl_revision_loyer'). It advises on address selection and includes a safety rule about zip codes. Alternatives are implied but not exhaustive.

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