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 structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: access is restricted to verified companies authorised by SynergieLoc, and on refusal the agent should ask the user. That said, it says nothing about pagination, volume or how the balance is computed.

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 definition is short and front-loaded: the use condition comes first, then the returned content, then the access constraint. Every clause carries information, though the run-on first sentence packs scope, grouping and output fields together in a single dense 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and states the authorization precondition plus the fallback behaviour on refusal. Combined with annotations that cover the read-only profile, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only pagination and result size are unaddressed.

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 both parameters (abonne subscriber code, bail_id lease filter) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the conceptual framing 'per lease and tenant', which implies that omitting bail_id returns all leases, but does not state it explicitly.

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 states a specific resource and scope: unpaid rent follow-up, rent calls due and not fully paid, per lease and tenant. It even lists the returned fields (amount due, days late, tenant balance). It stops short of naming the closest siblings such as relance_impaye or immo_appel_loyer, so the boundary with alternatives is left implicit.

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 leading 'WHEN you need unpaid rent follow-up' gives a clear triggering condition, which is more than most definitions offer. However, it never states when NOT to use it or which sibling tool to pick instead (e.g. relance_impaye for sending a reminder vs. this read-only query), so routing between the two remains inference.

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