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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that this produces only a draft and is never an automated detection, plus that consent is mandatory, but does not explain whether the draft is persisted or how step 2 consumes it.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the core action and the critical consent constraint. No filler, though the parenthetical is slightly dense.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the two-step framing is present. However, for a 7-parameter workflow tool the description leaves the draft lifecycle and the handoff to step 2 unexplained.

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 coverage is only 57%, and the description adds no meaning for lat, lon, prenom, or date_heure beyond what the schema already carries. It only reinforces the required consent flag, leaving the other parameters undocumented in prose.

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: it prepares a draft ('prepare un brouillon') of an observation report ('signalement d'observation'). The 'Etape 1 de 2' phrase implicitly positions it as the first step of a workflow, though it doesn't name the sibling (e.g., confirmer_action) that completes step 2.

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 gives one clear constraint ('consentement obligatoire, jamais une detection') and signals a two-step workflow, but never states when to choose this over siblings or what happens after the draft. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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