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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond that: only "vérifiées" (verified) offers are returned, implying a quality filter. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result shape, so credit is limited.

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-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with the example categories parenthetically placed rather than buried. No filler, though the long example list is slightly padded and could be trimmed.

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/list tool with rich annotations the description is adequate, but there is no output schema and the description does not describe the return shape, result ordering, or how "limite" interacts with pagination. An agent knows what the tool does but not fully what it gets back.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces what "categorie" means by enumerating eight example values, but the listed examples duplicate the schema's own example ("Banque") and the "limite" parameter is never mentioned in the description.

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?

The description states a specific verb ("Liste") and resource ("offres de parrainage vérifiées") and scopes it to a category of the Meilleur Code Parrainage directory. It is clearly distinguishable from detail_offre (single offer) and lister_categories (taxonomy listing), though it never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary.

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 category-scoping phrasing: an agent can infer this is the tool for browsing offers within one category. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternatives (rechercher_offres for keyword search, meilleures_offres for top picks) that would help disambiguate selection.

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