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 that the call returns full native documents rather than a summary, but says nothing about access requirements or response size.

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 short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is somewhat cryptic, but it does not waste space.

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 two-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description conveys the general nature of the return (complete native documents). It falls short on parameter roles and on what 'native documents' actually contain, which matters when there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 description coverage is 0%, so both projectId and proposalId reach the agent with no documentation. The single clause 'Les identifiants servent aux retours ciblés' is too vague to compensate: it does not explain the role of either identifier or why both are required.

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 states a clear verb and resource: reading a proposal's complete native documents for inspection, correction or preview. That separates it from apply_site_proposal, submit_site_proposal and request_site_proposal, 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?

The phrases 'pour les inspecter, corriger ou prévisualiser' imply the situations that call for this tool, but no alternative is named and there is no statement of when not to use it (e.g. versus get_site_project or get_site_template_document).

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