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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: all touched contacts are listed from most recent to oldest and paginated via next_cursor. It does not cover rate limits or auth needs, but those are less critical for a read-only history 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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, then flows into returned metrics and list/pagination behavior. Every sentence carries information, though the all-caps 'AFFICHE UN ÉCRAN' phrasing is slightly unusual.

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 and four input parameters, the description adequately characterizes the return: send/response metrics, contact counts, response rate, a listing of all touched people in reverse chronological order, and pagination. It does not describe edge cases such as empty histories, but it is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents days, limit, cursor, and recipe_id. The description reinforces the time window and pagination concept, but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 displays the execution history of an automation, including sends, responses, contact counts, and response rates over a time window. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling ficiel_get_automations by referencing that tool only for obtaining the recipe_id.

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 explains what the tool returns but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as ficiel_get_stats or ficiel_get_automations. The only reference to a sibling is for retrieving a required parameter, not for selecting this tool.

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