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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational facts: the call is free ("GRATUIT, aucune unité, aucune clé requise") and returns Markdown. It does not mention size limits or pagination for long guides, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the triggering condition before the operation itself. Slightly redundant in repeating that the slug comes from guides_liste, which the schema example and first clause already imply.

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 single-parameter, read-only document fetch with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what an agent needs: the precondition, the return format (Markdown), and the cost model. Absence of any note on guide size or truncation is the only remaining gap.

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% and the single slug parameter already carries concrete examples, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces provenance ("slug obtenu via guides_liste"), which is mild added value over the schema but not format or syntax detail.

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 ("Lit un guide officiel Synergieloc en Markdown complet") and clarifies that this is the full-content counterpart to the sibling guides_liste, which only returns slugs. An agent can distinguish it from guides_liste without opening either schema.

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 opening condition ("QUAND guides_liste a rendu un slug pertinent et qu'il faut le contenu complet de la procédure") explicitly states when to call this tool and names the sibling that must precede it. Nothing about invocation ordering 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.