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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, non-destructive, and not open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is free, costs 0 units, and requires no API key, along with the REST method and path. It does not discuss rate limits or output 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 WHEN condition and stays short. It is mostly efficient, though 'FREE', '0 units', and 'no API key' are slightly redundant, and two different URLs are mentioned without clarifying their relationship.

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 zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool without an output schema, the description covers when to use it, what it contains, and its cost/auth profile. It does not describe the return shape, but the context ('catalogue ... mapped to MCP tools') gives enough of a sense of what comes back.

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 tool has zero input parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to address. Per the baseline rule, 0 params yields a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing schema details.

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: a free catalogue of Partner Portal apps mapped to MCP tools. It also gives the underlying REST endpoint, making the tool's function clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like obtenir_cle_api or guides_liste, so it falls short of 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?

It clearly states when to use it: when helping an artisan or BTP company and needing to know what the Partner Portal covers, and says to call it first. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative tool, so 5 is not warranted.

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