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

Beyond the annotation hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses substantial behavior: deduplication keyed on source/externalId, atomic batch semantics, automatic collection tag addition, contact linking where identifiable, and lease renewal. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry, though it omits what happens to skipped duplicates or partial-failure outcomes.

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?

The text is a dense but front-loaded block: volume constraint, retry/idempotency rule, then item-field requirements and side effects. The semicolon-heavy French packing costs some readability but almost every clause carries unique 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?

For a 4-required-param write tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers item shape, dedup, atomicity, and side effects, which is close to adequate. The undefined `id` parameter and the absence of any expected-success/failure response shape leave a meaningful gap.

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 the description must compensate. It does this well for the items fields (source, externalId, sourceUrl, method, collectedAt as ISO, data matching columns) and specifies batchId as a UUID, but it leaves the top-level `id` and `leaseToken` (only obliquely 'Renouvelle le bail') unexplained. Partial compensation, not full.

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 specific verb+resource ('Déposer 1 à 100 résultats' into a collection) and scopes the operation to observed results with a lease, which is clearly a bulk-ingest write. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like update_collection_row or list_collection_rows, so it stops short of a 5.

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 concrete when-to-use guidance for one scenario: reuse the same batchId UUID and content when retrying after a timeout, implying idempotent retry semantics. However, it never says when to prefer this over update_collection_row, create_collection, or list/export siblings, leaving most routing to inference.

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