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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by defining the three possible outcomes and clarifying that non_envoye includes a reason, which helps interpret results. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but those are less critical for a read-only status call.

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 well-structured sentence front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates the possible values compactly. No redundant or filler text.

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?

For a simple read-only lookup with no output schema, the description provides the essential return semantics (statuses and reason). Annotations cover safety, and the schema covers the parameter type; the main gap is the lack of explicit parameter guidance, which is minor for a single required ID.

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 0% and the single parameter message_id is not mentioned in the description. While the tool concept implies a message identifier, the description adds no detail about the required UUID format, how to obtain the ID, or what it identifies.

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 the outcome of a message sent from the widget and enumerates possible statuses. It clearly identifies the resource being retrieved, but does not name a sibling alternative, so differentiation from related status tools is implicit.

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 phrase 'message envoyé depuis le widget' implies the use case—checking the real outcome of a widget-sent message—but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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