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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's addition that this is a public line and can be cited is extra useful context. It also clarifies that only an acte de collectivité includes a permanent address, enriching behavioral understanding beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and then lists return fields. Every element earns its place with no waste.

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 one required parameter, a simple read annotation, and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the identifier format and what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly say what happens if the id is invalid or not found, which is a minor 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 0% and the id parameter has only a pattern in the schema. The description compensates by stating that the identifier must be 64 hexadecimal characters (matching the pattern) and clarifying that it identifies a receipt. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 (rend/lire) and resource (la ligne publique d'un reçu), and enumerates what is returned (empreinte, jour, ligne du registre, adresse pérenne). This makes the tool's function clear without needing to open the schema. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like chercher_empreinte or dater_empreinte, which also deal with receipt fingerprints.

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?

Implies usage by accepting an identifier and returning the public line for citation, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the sibling tools. The agent must infer that this tool is for retrieving a full public record, not for searching or dating.

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