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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds some process-level context ('publication sans redéploiement', 'suivi persistant', 'lectures et corrections bornées'), but these phrases are too compressed to convey concrete behavior to an agent.

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 sentences with the mandatory nature front-loaded and the process steps packed into a single enumeration — no obvious filler. The density of nominalized French terms reduces readability slightly but nothing is wasted.

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 zero-parameter, read-only guide tool with no output schema, the description should convey what the agent gets back and how to act on it. It sketches the process stages but leaves the return shape and the relationship to publish_template / get_template_review unclear, so an agent still has to guess what to do with the result.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a lookup that needs no inputs, though it does not explicitly say so.

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 identifies the resource as the mandatory process for adding a template and enumerates its steps (client capture, conversion, native components, correction, proofs, publication). However, it never states plainly that the tool returns a guide/instructions, and the noun-heavy phrasing ('preuves aux trois formats', 'lectures et corrections bornées') is vague. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as get_operator_guide or get_template_review.

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 word 'obligatoire' implies the guide must be consulted before adding a template, which is useful implied usage guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no named alternative (e.g., create_template_draft or list_managed_templates) to route between.

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