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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real value by enumerating what the evidence payload contains: source type, effective date, collection date, page, exact excerpt and known contradictions. It does not state that the operation is read-only, nor anything about rate limits or failure behavior, leaving gaps that annotations would normally cover.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the subject and then lists the payload fields via a colon. Every listed item contributes to the reader's understanding; only the lack of an action verb costs it a point.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, describing the return contents is the most useful thing the description can do, and it does so. It still omits the basic purpose statement and usage routing, and the French text sits oddly against English sibling names, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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% and the schema already explains that observation_id comes from get_fee_history (champ id). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the resource ('Preuve d'une valeur') and enumerates the evidence components, so an agent can infer it retrieves the provenance of a value. However, no verb states the action ('retourne', 'récupère'), and it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as get_fee_history or get_tariff_changes, which also deal with fee data.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. The implicit framing ('preuve d'une valeur') suggests it is used to verify or justify a figure, but the agent must infer that it is the follow-up to get_fee_history from the schema rather than from the description.

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