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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that the tool sends an email, is idempotent (no effect if already sent), and that the unilateral declaration flag causes the constat to mention B's absence. These concrete details complement the generic destructiveHint and idempotentHint 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then typical use cases, and an important no-op warning. Every sentence carries useful information without redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema and two parameters, the description covers all essential aspects: the trigger condition, when it is normally unnecessary, the special unilateral declaration mode, and the idempotent behavior. No critical gaps remain for selection or invocation.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the condition for envoyer_sans_signature_b (explicit user request with awareness of consequences). The description does not add new parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Vérifie l'envoi du constat, et le déclenche si les signatures sont réunies' — it verifies and triggers sending the constat. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it normally happens automatically and by specifying a special use case (unilateral declaration).

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 description explicitly says the tool is 'Normalement inutile' and explains its main uses: confirming sending or producing a unilateral declaration when driver B never signs. It also warns that calling has no effect if already sent, guiding when not to invoke it and implicitly directing users to alternatives for status checks.

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