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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly describes the tool's behavior: it is an authenticated decision engine that takes prospect info and returns decisions (cible, campagne, actions). It also specifies authentication requirements (API key, X-Make-Secret or X-API-Key), cost (0 units), and constraints (never invent offers/prices).

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 dense and informative, with front-loaded purpose. Each sentence adds value, but the paragraph format could be more structured (e.g., bullet points). Still, it is efficient and avoids fluff.

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 the lack of output schema and only 17% schema coverage, the description covers when to use, authentication, behavior, and follow-up actions. It mentions that the tool decides cible, campagne, and actions[], implicitly describing the output. However, it does not explicitly state the response format or structure, which would be useful.

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?

The input schema has 6 parameters with only 17% description coverage (only 'cible' has a description). The description adds meaning by stating 'Pass prospect info only' and implying that prospect_nom, prospect_email, prospect_entreprise are prospect info. However, it does not detail the syntax or format for each parameter, leaving some ambiguity.

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 that the tool decides what to do with prospects in an outreach scenario, using the verb 'decides' and specifying the resource 'campagne'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a decision engine called after collection and before email sending.

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 explains when to use this tool: after collecting prospects and before sending commercial email. It provides a sequence ('Make/n8n collects, Synergieloc decides') and a follow-up action ('envoyer_offre'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives among siblings.

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