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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description goes further by warning that this fires a genuine new outbound send and that the recipient must deduplicate on Outil-Event-Id. That idempotency caveat is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations. It does not say what happens on a non-failed delivery or how the new send is identified.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the side-effect warning. No padding, no restatement of the title.

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 mutation with annotations but no output schema, the description covers the action and the key side effect, yet leaves the meaning of both parameters and the result (new delivery id? error when the delivery is not in a failed state?) unaddressed. Adequate minimum, with clear gaps an agent will hit at call time.

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 parameter meaning and largely does not: 'id' (a 32-hex-char value, presumably the payment page) is never explained, and 'delivery' is only obliquely referenced via 'livraison échouée'. With two required undocumented parameters, the agent must guess which identifier goes where.

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 pair: requeue a failed webhook delivery ('remettre en file une livraison échouée'). That clearly separates it from the get_/configure_/list_ siblings around payment page webhooks. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating the boundary versus retry_workflow_run, so it is clear but not sibling-routing.

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 'Administrateur :' prefix conveys an admin-only precondition and the phrase 'livraison échouée' implies the trigger condition (a delivery already failed). There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of which sibling to use to inspect a delivery first (get_payment_page_webhook / list_form_deliveries), so usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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