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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the operation affects one week of one contract; it does not say whether the counter can go negative, what happens on repeat calls, or whether prior weeks can be edited.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words, which is good, but that brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency. The phrase is front-loaded but ambiguous.

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 mutating, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the description says nothing about the result of the call (e.g. the new count) or boundaries on decrementing. The rich schema compensates for parameter details, but behavioral context is largely absent.

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%, with descriptive text for id, action (including the enum meanings) and week_start, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify the 'default to current week' behavior.

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 an action (count one more, or remove one) and an object (a contract's week), so the general purpose is inferable. However, the phrase 'une fois tenue' is opaque without domain knowledge, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as dandori_contract_add_update or dandori_action, which could plausibly mutate the same contract.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; the only hint about choosing the decrement path ('corriger une erreur') lives in the schema, not the description. An agent learning about this tool from the text alone cannot tell how it relates to the other contract tools.

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