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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the tool name, such as side effects, permission requirements, or rate limits.

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 extremely concise—two words in French—with no unnecessary information. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slightly minimal for full clarity.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, a full output schema is absent, and annotations cover safety, the description provides the core purpose. However, it lacks any detail about the output format, such as fields returned or pagination, which would be needed for an agent to fully understand the response.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema provides no meaning. The description adds value by specifying the tool's purpose (listing low stock alerts). For a parameterless tool, this is adequate, though it does not describe the output structure.

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 'Alertes stock bas / rupture' clearly states the tool lists low stock or stockout alerts, specifying both the verb (list) and resource (stock alerts). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'dashboard_alerts' and 'stock_dashboard' by focusing specifically on stock alerts.

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 implies usage for viewing low stock alerts but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'stock_dashboard' or 'dashboard_alerts'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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