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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine domain behavior beyond that: it discloses that results carry progression state and that `running` implies a lease that can expire and be resumed, which tells the agent how the queue semantics work. Missing pagination/ordering details keep it from a 5.

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, front-loaded with what is listed and immediately followed by the filtering advice — no filler. The language switch to French against an English name/title is a minor friction for an English-reading agent but 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 listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and the most actionable filter semantics. Gaps are minor: the `q` parameter, pagination/result limits, and default status behavior are unaddressed.

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 has to carry the load. It explains the operational meaning of `status=queued` and `status=running`, but leaves five other enum values unexplained and never mentions the `q` parameter at all, so meaning is added for only part of the parameter surface.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource ("Lister les collectes du projet") plus the scope of what is returned ("leur progression"), so an agent knows exactly what the call produces. It does not differentiate itself from near neighbors such as describe_collections, get_collection, or list_collection_rows, and it is written in French while the name/title are English, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

It gives real situational guidance for two enum values: filter `queued` to find missions to pick up and `running` for resumptions after a lease expires. It says nothing about when to use this versus describe_collections or list_collection_rows, and no guidance covers the remaining statuses (draft, blocked, completed, failed, cancelled), so usage is implied rather than fully framed.

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