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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is established. The description adds valuable context beyond that by enumerating exactly what the tool reveals — version history, cadence, next review date, and reliability levels — and even cites the underlying source file. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the core purpose, uses em dashes to enumerate content compactly, and closes with a concrete use case. The parenthetical source citation adds provenance without bloat. Every element earns its place.

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 metadata tool with no output schema, the description fully carries the burden of explaining return content. It lists the information categories an agent can expect — current vintage, history, cadence, next global review, reliability levels — which is complete for someone deciding whether this tool answers a freshness question.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing to document, and the description sensibly spends no space on parameters.

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 purpose: it provides version and freshness metadata for the referentiel (current vintage, version history, cadence, next global review, reliability levels). It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling tools referentiel_recherche and referentiel_valeur, which query actual values, whereas this tool reports on the data's provenance and currency.

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 closing clause 'pour savoir de quand datent les valeurs et quand elles seront re-vérifiées' gives an explicit use case for when to invoke this tool. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions explicitly, but the purpose is distinct enough from the value/recherche siblings that an agent can infer when to call it. Lacks an explicit 'use X instead' routing.

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