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

Annotations already mark this read-only/non-destructive/non-open-world, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: API key required, cost of 0 units, that prospect_email is never retained after the decision, and the hard rule never to invent offers/prices. It does not contradict the annotations. Minor gap: it never describes the shape of the returned actions[].

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?

Information-dense and mostly front-loaded, but delivered as one run-on paragraph mixing French/English, slash-separated REST paths, and parenthetical asides (auth, cost, retention). Every element is arguably useful, yet the structure makes it hard to parse quickly.

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 no-output-schema decision tool, the description covers preconditions, auth, cost, constraints, and the downstream send flow. The one omission is the response shape (the contents of actions[] and the decision payload), which an agent would need to act on the result.

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%, so the schema already documents all six fields (cible, produit, contexte, etc.) in detail. The description only adds a light directive ('pass prospect info only'), which does not go meaningfully beyond what the schema already conveys; 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 names a specific verb+resource — a decision engine for outreach/campaigns that decides cible, campagne and actions[] — and cleanly separates its role from the collector ('Make/n8n collects, Synergieloc decides'). It is distinguishable from all listed siblings (which are construction/real-estate tools), but the purpose is embedded behind a long WHEN clause and REST/auth noise rather than stated crisply first.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('WHEN an outreach scenario has collected prospects'), a hard precondition ('MUST call this before sending commercial email'), and a named follow-up route for the sender (actions envoyer_offre → /api/v1/agent/demarchage). Nothing about sequencing is left to inference.

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