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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real value beyond these by stating what the call returns — native conditions to present plus required fields — which is important since there is no output schema. It does not discuss rate limits, errors, or locale behavior.

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 sentence that front-loads the invocation timing before the result. Every clause carries information and nothing is wasted.

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 simple no-parameter read with no output schema, the description conveys both when to call it and roughly what comes back. It stops short of describing the structure or format of the returned conditions and fields, which would be useful without an output schema.

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 and the schema is empty, so per the baseline this scores 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed before a signup.

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 gives a specific verb ('renvoie') and resource ('les conditions natives à présenter et les champs requis'), so an agent knows it retrieves signup requirements. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like start_account_signup or complete_account_signup, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

'À appeler avant une inscription' clearly states the timing and context for invoking this tool. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, and the sibling signup tools are never mentioned, so the guidance is contextual but not comparative.

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