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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuinely useful traits beyond the schema: the operation is free ('Gratuit') and the file is transmitted as base64. However it omits size limits, error/failure behavior, and any permission or quota constraints.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded; no filler or redundancy. Every clause carries information (formats, return value, cost, transport).

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully explains the returned plan_id and how to use it downstream, plus accepted formats and cost. It could be fuller on upload limits and failure modes, but it is adequate for a two-parameter upload tool.

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 both parameters (nom_fichier, contenu_base64) are already documented. The description's 'Le fichier est envoyé en base64' only restates the encoding already captured by the parameter schema, adding no new syntax or constraint.

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 (dépose/upload), the resource (plan), the accepted formats (PDF, DXF, STEP), and the return value (plan_id). It is clearly distinguishable from the calculation, comparison, and billing siblings.

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?

'rend un plan_id à utiliser dans les autres outils' positions this as the prerequisite step that feeds downstream tools, which is real workflow guidance. It stops short of explicit when-not-use conditions or naming a specific alternative.

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