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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is returned (price, features, photos) and the similar_tools behavior, including distance within 20 km and a usage policy (suggest if too expensive or too far). It could cover error cases, but for a simple detail-lookup tool this is transparent.

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, fully front-loaded with purpose and usage. Every clause adds value, including the similar_tools guidance. Zero redundancy and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description adequately covers the return values and usage context. It is nearly complete, though it does not mention behavior when no similar tools exist or if the URL is invalid.

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 100%, with tool_url already documented including an example URL. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: 'Récupère les informations détaillées d'un outil sur Toolzy' with clear scope (prix, caractéristiques, photos). It distinguishes from siblings by implying search_tools is for finding tools and positioning this tool as the follow-up for a specific tool.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'quand l'utilisateur veut en savoir plus sur un outil spécifique après avoir vu les résultats de recherche.' This gives clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, which keeps it a step below a perfect score.

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