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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those annotations: the output is deterministic, and the tool explicitly 'Ne produit aucune opinion d’investissement.' This helps an agent understand behavioral constraints that annotations do not capture.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then efficiently lists the pack's contents. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details, and every element contributes to understanding what the tool produces.

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 presence of an output schema, rich annotations, and full schema coverage for parameters, the description is reasonably complete. It clarifies the deterministic nature, the non-opinion boundary, and the core contents of the research pack. It could be stronger with explicit usage alternatives, but nothing essential is missing for invoking the tool correctly.

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 parameter meaning is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter syntax, defaults, or format details beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compose') and resource ('paquet de recherche déterministe'), and enumerates what the pack contains. It clearly conveys what the tool does and is distinguishable from the many get_* and search_* siblings, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it is not.

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 phrase 'en un appel' implies this tool bundles what sibling tools like get_claims, get_freshness, and get_risk_diff would otherwise provide separately. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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