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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It details the checklist contents (visual checks, temperatures, stock, hygiene, documents) without mentioning side effects or permissions. Since it is a read-only retrieval, this level of transparency is adequate.

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 informative but includes both French and English text, making it longer than necessary. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value, but could be more streamlined by keeping one language.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns by listing categories and item count (from schema). It is complete enough for a checklist retrieval tool, though a more explicit return format would be helpful.

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 coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter. The description explicitly states that the parameter adds trade-specific items, and the schema provides valid values and explains the default behavior. This adds clear meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Retourne la checklist complète de vérification à réaliser avant l'ouverture quotidienne d'un établissement alimentaire en France', which is a specific verb+resource. It is distinct from sibling tools that cover other aspects like allergens or corrective actions.

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 implies use for daily pre-opening checks but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives. The context suggests it is for routine morning checks, but lacks explicit usage boundaries.

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