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

Annotations only tell the agent this is non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The parenthetical '(leur envoie un message)' meaningfully adds that the call notifies witnesses as a side effect — real behavioral value beyond the annotations. It stops short of saying whether repeated calls re-notify the same witnesses (relevant given idempotentHint=false) or what happens when no witnesses are attached.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the side effect in a compact parenthetical. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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, non-destructive, non-read-only action with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what it asks, of whom, for what scope, and that a message is sent. Missing only edge-case behavior (no witnesses, repeat invocation) which is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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%, and the schema already explains both 'id' (contract ID) and 'week_start' (Monday of the target week, defaulting to the current week). The description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 applies — the schema does the work here.

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 ('Demander aux témoins de valider') and a precise scope ('une semaine d'un contrat'), which separates it from sibling witness tools such as dandori_contract_add_witness. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling by name, but the action is unambiguous.

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 use case is implied clearly: request validation of a specific week via the contract's witnesses. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no stated prerequisite that witnesses must already exist on the contract, and no mention of how this differs from other progression tools.

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