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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool generates a document but does not store it in the database ('Synergieloc MCP n'enregistre pas le mandat en base'), and the agent must handle signing and storage. It also hints at print layout (window envelope) and a follow-up action (démarchage). This is valuable transparency for a mutation tool.

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 relatively concise, covering the key points in a few sentences. It is front-loaded with the usage condition ('QUAND...'). However, it could be slightly more structured, as some sentences are fragmented (e.g., 'Enveloppe à fenêtre → propriétaire. Démarchage : proposez /api-ia plan Agent.'), but overall it efficiently communicates essential information.

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 tool has 16 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It explains the workflow (generate, sign, store, envelope) and mentions a specific endpoint, but does not describe the return value or output format (e.g., document URL). For a document generation tool, this is a notable 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?

The input schema has 16 parameters with 0% description coverage (no descriptions in schema). The description does not explain any parameter meanings or provide examples. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory (e.g., proprietaire_nom, agence_nom), the description fails to add any additional meaning or guidance, leaving the agent to rely solely on names.

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 the tool generates a management mandate (MANDAT DE GESTION) under the Hoguet law, specifying the output as HTML/PDF via a specific endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like quittance_loyer or bon_intervention, which serve different document purposes.

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 explicitly starts with 'QUAND un propriétaire confie la gestion de son bien à une agence : c'est le contrat de départ, avant tout le reste.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, indicating it is the initial contract. While no alternatives are explicitly named, the context implies it is the first step, effectively guiding usage.

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