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 supplied. The description adds a useful behavioral detail — it returns links, not a rendered image, and the caller must open them externally — but omits limits such as the 12-component cap or behavior on invalid IDs.

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 the purpose, then the next action; nothing is wasted. It is close to optimally sized for such a narrow tool.

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 low-complexity, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough to attempt a call, including the rough return shape. It falls short on the required componentIds parameter's expected values and size limits, which the undocumented schema does not supply either.

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 carry the burden. It does map the device parameter onto its three enum values (ordinateur, tablette, téléphone) and characterizes componentIds as sections and elements, but leaves the array's 1-12 bounds and the ID format entirely undocumented.

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?

Names a specific verb (obtenir) and resource (liens d'aperçu visuel de sections et éléments), with the device dimension stated. The purpose is unmistakable, though it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as show_preview or capture_page_images, so an agent cannot tell which to pick.

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 second sentence gives an actionable workflow (open the returned path with open_in_outil, then inspect in the browser), which implies when to use the tool. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no comparison to the visible preview-related siblings.

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