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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about what the manifest contains and positions it as a non-scraping discovery path, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as caching, versioning, or stability.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences. The core return value is stated first, followed by content details and the recommended usage context. Every part earns its place with no 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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly. It also adds a clear discovery-oriented framing that helps the agent understand when to call it.

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 schema already covers everything. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed; the baseline of 4 applies cleanly here.

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 states a specific verb ('Renvoie' / returns) and a specific resource ('le manifeste Agent Surface de l0g.fr'), and enumerates its contents: capabilities, endpoints, usage rules, proof policies, and counters. It clearly indicates what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools by name.

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 recommends this tool as the entry point for discovering machine surfaces and even frames it as an alternative to scraping ('sans scraper'). It gives clear when-to-use context, though it does not mention specific sibling alternatives or exclusions.

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