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 valuable behavioral context by stating that it returns the new capped rent, the formula, and legal warnings – output details not present in any schema. It stops short of covering edge cases or validation behavior.

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 front-loaded with the usage trigger ('QUAND'), then moves to purpose, required inputs, and output in four compact sentences. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 read-only computation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: when to use it, what inputs are needed, and what the return contains (new rent, formula, legal warnings). It does not mention validation or error handling, but annotations cover the safety profile, so the definition is nearly complete.

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 fully documents all four parameters. The description names the three required inputs ('loyer actuel' and the two IRL indices), but adds no additional syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 verb and resource: 'Révision annuelle d'un loyer d'habitation indexée sur l'IRL'. It also cites the legal basis (art. 17-1 loi 89-462), which helps an agent understand the domain. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling 'avenant_revision_irl', so it falls short of a 5.

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 'QUAND un bail arrive à sa date anniversaire et que le loyer peut être révisé' gives a clear condition for when to use the tool. There is no explicit when-not guidance or alternative tool routing, but the context is unambiguous.

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