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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does the most important part: it specifies the exact return payload (name, type, required, format/pattern, bounds, example), which is critical because there is no output schema. Remaining gaps are error behavior for an unknown id and any permission requirement, and read-only status is only implied by 'Return'.

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, front-loaded with the return contract, then sequencing, then the payoff. Nothing is padded, though the closing 'Prevents hallucinated fields' is value framing rather than new information.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and the required id plus its originating tool are both documented. Only failure/permission behavior for an invalid procedure id is left unaddressed.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is documented with an example value, so the schema already does the parameter work. The description only says 'a given administrative procedure' without adding format guidance beyond the schema, so 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 and resource ('Return exactly which fields a given administrative procedure requires') and enumerates the returned field attributes, so it is clearly distinguishable from sibling tracea_list_demarches. An agent knows precisely what this tool produces without opening a schema.

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 prescribes the sequencing: 'Call this after tracea_list_demarches', and gives the downstream reason (ask the user ONLY for the real fields). It does not name a case where this tool should be skipped, but the ordering constraint against the sibling is clear and actionable.

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