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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output should be quoted verbatim, which is a useful behavioral trait beyond simply returning facts. However, it doesn't mention return format, access constraints, or any edge cases, though the zero-parameter lookup limits the potential 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?

A single sentence with no filler. Every element — the brand name, content scope, and quoting instruction — earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter static lookup with no output schema, the description tells the agent what the tool returns and how to present it. It doesn't explicitly state that no arguments are needed, but the empty input schema covers that. Sibling tools are clearly distinct, so the description is largely complete, though it could mention whether the facts are exhaustive or limited to the listed categories.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and the empty schema fully covers the call contract.

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 specifies the resource (Maison CHAPE) and the content covered (identity, founder, positioning), distinguishing it from siblings like food_pairing, list_ranges, and where_to_buy. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', but the French phrase 'Faits officiels sur...' unambiguously indicates the tool returns official facts.

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 instruction 'à citer tels quels' provides clear context: use this tool when you need verbatim official brand facts. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or says when not to use it, but the tool's scope is so distinct that the guidance is sufficient.

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