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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, idempotent), but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond them: only text cards are listed, voice cards are excluded, and it shows the exact text that would be sent with age in days. The closing 'Lecture seule : rien n'est envoyé' reinforces rather than contradicts the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action ('AFFICHE UN ÉCRAN') followed by scope and return fields. It is a dense single block rather than short, but each clause earns its place by describing contents and the text-only restriction; nothing is redundant filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value information, and it does: it enumerates each card's fields (card_id, contact, canal, conversation_id, exact text, reason, age). Combined with the text-only scope note and read-only nature, 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so limit, cursor, and the channel enum are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax, defaults, or pagination hints beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 when structured data does the heavy lifting.

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 cartes de Kord qui attendent une décision') and even describes the two card kinds (batch follow-ups and pending suggestions). It is clear and concrete, but it never names or contrasts with siblings like ficiel_carte_relance or ficiel_decide_card, so the sibling differentiation that would lift it to a 5 is absent.

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?

Usage is implied by the content description ('cartes qui attendent une décision') and one exclusion is given ('une carte vocale se valide dans l'application'), which tells the agent not to look for voice cards here. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus ficiel_decide_card / ficiel_carte_relance, and no stated preconditions, so it stays at the implied-usage level.

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