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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile. The description goes further by disclosing that no external verification or authentication happens and that the output is full HTML returned inline rather than a file, URL, or PDF — genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations. It does not mention pagination or size limits, but for a stateless formatting tool that is minor.

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?

Tightly front-loaded with the trigger first, then scope limits, then output format. The only waste is the redundant second enumeration of 'RC Pro, décennale, URSSAF, KBIS' already given in the opening clause.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by describing the return (complete HTML in the response, not file/URL/PDF) and the pieces[] record shape. All six optional parameters are documented in the schema, so an agent has what it needs to call this correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the internal shape of pieces[] ({type, statut, numero, date_expiration}) that the schema does not specify — the schema only says array of generic objects. That is real semantic value beyond the structured fields, though the other five params are left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('vérifier qu'un artisan est en règle', checklist conformité artisan) and names the four document types. It also sharply delimits the tool from what an agent might assume it does, so it is clearly distinguishable from any 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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('QUAND il faut vérifier... avant de lui confier un chantier') and adds an explicit when-NOT: 'c'est une checklist, pas un contrôle', stating nothing is verified with URSSAF or a greffe. Both the use case and the boundary are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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