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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safe-read profile is known. The description adds real value beyond that: it warns the output is complete and untruncated ('chaque texte en entier') and flags a read-only field that cannot be modified here, which prevents a misuse attempt.

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?

Long single sentence, but front-loaded with the key claim ('Lit TOUTE la configuration... chaque texte en entier') before the field list. The enumeration is dense yet justified because there is no output schema to carry it; structure could be improved with a bulleted list but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload and does so exhaustively, including the caveat about the read-only compiled prompt. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The enumeration of configuration fields describes return content rather than inputs, which is informative but not parameter semantics per se.

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+resource ('Lit TOUTE la configuration de l'agent') and then enumerates exactly what constitutes that configuration, from niche to compiled prompt. An agent can immediately distinguish it from ficiel_list_agent_config_versions (versions) and the edit tools without opening any schema.

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?

No explicit 'use when' clause, but the description routes the agent correctly by naming ficiel_edit_agent_prompt as the tool that targets the free-text zone and ficiel_edit_agent_profile as the only way to change the compiled prompt. This clarifies read-vs-edit boundaries, though it never states a trigger condition for calling this tool.

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