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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'sans rien modifier' is partly redundant. The added guarantee that nothing is sent ('ni envoyer') goes beyond the annotations, since readOnlyHint would not normally cover outbound messages to the contact, and the description also previews the return payload despite there being no output schema.

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 its non-side-effect guarantee, followed by the return contents. No filler or repetition.

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, three-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose, side-effect behavior and return values adequately. It falls short on the meaning of 'id' and 'actions', which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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, yet it only implies that contactId refers to a real contact. It says nothing about what 'id' identifies (presumably the workflow/journey) or what the optional 'actions' array is for, leaving two of three parameters unexplained.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Simuler un parcours') and scopes it to a real contact, then states the return contents (decisions, steps, delays). This separates it from execution-oriented siblings such as run_flow or retry_workflow_run, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 clause 'sans rien modifier ni envoyer' implies the tool is for dry-run/testing rather than real execution, which is useful context for choosing between this and run_flow. However, no alternative tool or explicit when-not-to-use condition is stated, so the routing guidance remains inferred.

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