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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real context beyond them: owner-only authorization, refusal during the free audit and for suspended organizations, and units in centimes. It repeats 'Lecture seule' which the annotations already declare, but the auth and state preconditions are genuine additions.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the key concept (the two cash numbers) before elaborating. Every clause carries domain meaning (null semantics, ×5% estimate, centimes) though 'Lecture seule' is redundant with the annotations and the paragraph runs long.

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 return-value burden and does explain the two figures, the null conventions ('null = à renseigner, jamais 0'), units in centimes, and the estimate formula. It omits pagination/response shape but is otherwise complete enough to call the tool correctly.

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 100%, so limit (default 50, max 200, totals always span all rows) and cursor (next_cursor) are already fully documented. The description adds no syntax or format detail for the two parameters, so the baseline 3 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+resource ('AFFICHE UN ÉCRAN cash signé et dormant') and immediately defines the two figures it reports so an agent knows exactly what it renders. It explicitly differentiates its large dormant-cash definition from the sibling ficiel_find_dormant_leads, so the boundary is unambiguous.

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?

Gives clear context for when this screen is usable (owner-only; refused during free audit and for suspended orgs) and implicitly when not to reach for it by contrasting against ficiel_find_dormant_leads. However it never states the positive use case ('call this when...') or names other candidate tools, so no explicit when/when-not routing.

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