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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real value beyond them: the call persists a record for connector improvement, and there is a hard prohibition on including personal data. It does not cover permissions or rate limits, but the write-with-side-effect nature and the PII constraint are the important behaviors here.

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?

Three short sentences: trigger first, persistence effect second, data-safety and follow-up third. Every sentence carries an actionable instruction and none is padding.

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 two parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema handling return values, the description supplies everything an agent needs: when to call, what to send, what to avoid sending, and what to tell the user afterward.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the no-personal-data constraint on 'request'. The description reinforces that constraint but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 action (reporting an unhandled user request) and enumerates the three concrete cases that trigger it (missing function, unexposed data, disallowed action). This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are read/lookup tools.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('quand une demande ne peut pas être traitée avec les autres outils') and names explicit alternatives implicitly by pointing at all other tools. It also prescribes post-invocation behavior (explain the limitation to the user), leaving nothing to inference.

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