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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the automations are human-authored verbatim and never generated at send time, which tells the agent the listing content is static and not dynamically produced.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource, then the returned fields, then the behavioral note. No wasted clauses.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields (activation, contenu, état), which is what an agent needs for a zero-param getter. It stops short of describing ordering, pagination or volume, but for this simple read that 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the schema; baseline of 4 applies.

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 and resource ('Liste les recettes d'automatisation de votre organisation') and concretely enumerates what is returned (activation, contenu, état) plus what the objects are (commentaire vers message privé, relance après silence). It clearly contrasts with the write-side siblings create_automation and set_automation, though it does not name them.

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 read-only listing intent is implied by 'Liste', which makes it distinguishable from create_automation/set_automation, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative (e.g. get_automation_runs) is mentioned for run history.

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