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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a little beyond that: it is a read-only catalogue with no mandatory ordering of services and configuration is done "dans les outils" (i.e., this tool does not itself change settings). It still does not say what shape the catalogue takes or how large a payload to expect.

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?

Four short sentences, but they are fragmented and front-load enumeration ("16 objectifs") instead of purpose. The description is also in French while the name, title, and sibling tools are English, which adds friction for an English-oriented agent without adding information.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it only partially does so (a catalogue of 16 objectives/services plus suggestedActions). Notions like "pages historiques restent disponibles" are unexplained, leaving the agent unsure what content the response actually contains.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description does not falsely imply any inputs, which is the main risk for a no-arg tool.

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 says it is a "Catalogue de 16 objectifs et services disponibles," which gestures at a descriptive/catalogue function, but it never actually states that it describes sales journeys or what a "journey" contains. Against siblings like list_sales_journeys, get_sales_journey, and list_journey_service_options, an agent cannot tell from this text alone why this tool exists or what distinguishes it.

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 when-to-use guidance and no reference to any alternative tool. The line about suggestedActions being "modifiable, sans ordre ni service obligatoire" describes the subject matter rather than when an agent should call this tool instead of get_sales_journey or list_sales_journeys.

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