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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose what the response covers, including the unusual signals of source contradictions and next-year grid presence. It stops short of stating read-only semantics, auth requirements, or whether coverage is reported per-attribute or as counts.

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 compact sentences, with the resource definition front-loaded before the enumeration of contents and the usage trigger. The middle enumeration is dense but every item conveys distinct value; only the slightly clipped phrasing keeps it from a 5.

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 single-optional-parameter meta tool with no output schema, the description does the necessary work by enumerating the content categories an agent will receive, standing in for a return-value spec. It leaves the response shape (per-attribute detail vs summary) implicit.

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?

With one optional parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains the slug-or-entity-id convention and the omit-for-all behavior. The description only echoes the '(ou toutes)' default, adding no formatting detail 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?

States a specific resource and verb: coverage metadata for a bank, naming the exact categories returned (documented attributes, official sources, missing attributes, source contradictions, next-year grid presence). This clearly separates it from data-fetching siblings like get_bank_fees or get_evidence, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: call it before asserting that a datum does not exist. That is a clear usage context, but it offers no when-not guidance and does not contrast itself against alternatives such as get_evidence, which an agent comparing tools must infer.

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