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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the authentication requirement (connection requested the first time) and the shape of the returned data (who, amount, status, address), which an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the audience/access condition followed by the returned content. Nothing is padded, though the phrasing is slightly fragmented rather than crisply structured.

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 and readOnly annotations, the description does a fair job covering auth and return fields. But it leaves gaps an agent would want: what 'limite' controls, ordering, and pagination behavior are all unaddressed.

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?

There is one parameter (limite) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it at all. It neither explains the limit's purpose nor its range/bounds, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 clearly identifies the resource — the connected user's sent withdrawal links — and enumerates the fields surfaced (recipient, amount, status, address). It reads as a listing operation but never explicitly states the verb 'list', and it doesn't differentiate from near-neighbors like mes_liens or mes_retraits.

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 establishes context — the connected Tchin user, merchant or individual, with login required on first use — which implies when the tool applies. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., mes_retraits, mes_liens) and no exclusions.

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