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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the backend generator call, that the dossier is persisted for the visitor's agent, the return payload, and the failure mode (ok:false + champsManquants) with an explicit rule against fabricating partial documents. It does not mention auth/permission requirements, which is the only notable gap.

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?

Three tight sentences: capability first, then ordering constraints, then failure behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a mutation tool with a nested object payload and no output schema, the description covers the side effects, sequencing, and return shape adequately. It could say more about prerequisites (e.g. required identity/auth) or what happens when the document is regenerated.

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 documents id, agent and donnees with their formats and warnings. The description adds only the 'same fields as tracea_demarche_schema' cross-reference, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Prepare le document officiel d'une demarche (CERFA ou demarche libre) et le rend signable'), and names the downstream artifacts (reference + PDF path). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like tracea_signature and tracea_check_demarche.

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?

Explicitly states ordering relative to siblings: 'A appeler APRES tracea_check_demarche (ok:true) et AVANT tracea_signature'. The precondition and alternative flow are spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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