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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent profile. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the Rust engine is the sole authority for validity, and the tool also performs local lint and a first diagnostic. That clarifies the validation semantics and output nature well.

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 core action and the authority rule, then the usage directive. No wasted text, though the parenthetical slightly interrupts the flow.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to convey purpose, authority model, and usage timing — all of which it does. Nothing critical is missing for calling 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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the schema itself documents the 20,000-character limit. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Valide) and resource (ArenaScript), and breaks the operation into its three components (préflight du moteur Rust, lint local, premier diagnostic). It clearly conveys what the tool does, though it never names sibling tools like repair_arenascript or arenascript_reference to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Explicitly says to use it 'dans une boucle d'auto-correction avant tout backtest sérieux', which gives a clear when-to-use context. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., vs. repair_arenascript), so it is clear context without routing.

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