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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and 'Lecture seule' merely repeats it. The description earns credit beyond that by disclosing the actual return vocabulary (paye / en_cours / a_payer), which is essential behavior given there is no output schema.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the status question and closes with the three possible values plus the read-only note. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 no output schema, the enumerated states are exactly the return-value information an agent needs, and the token source is documented. Minor gaps remain: no statement on behavior for an unknown or expired token, and the overlap with etat_demande is left unresolved.

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 token parameter is already documented, including its provenance from afficher_lien_tchin / preparer_demande_tchin. The description only restates 'by its code', adding no new syntax or format detail, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: reports whether a Tchin payment (payment link or payment request, by its code) is paid, in validation, or still to pay. The three enumerated outcome states make the tool's function concrete. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the sibling etat_demande, which also sounds like it reports request status.

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?

'Lecture seule' plus the token reference implies the read-only lookup context, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to detail_paiement or etat_demande. An agent must infer which status tool applies to a 'demande de paiement'.

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