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

With readOnlyHint=true, the annotation already declares this as a safe read operation. The description adds useful context by specifying that it returns depreciable items only and lists the exact fields returned, going beyond the annotation. No contradictions found.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then efficiently lists the return fields. No redundant wording or fluff, every part adds value.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, optional filter, and return fields. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 schema has one parameter (property_id) with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining the optional property filter, making it clear that property_id filters results by a specific property. This is a direct mapping to the only parameter.

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 clearly states the tool lists the user's depreciable furniture and equipment with an optional property filter. It uses a specific verb ('Liste') and resource ('mobilier et équipements amortissables'), distinguishing it from sibling write tools like create_furniture, update_furniture, and delete_furniture.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool—when listing furniture/equipment—and mentions the optional property filter. It does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., list_properties) or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous.

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