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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states 'same JSON as GET /accueil,' which communicates a read-only, GET-like behavior, and 'free' indicates no cost. This goes beyond the empty parameter schema and gives the agent safety expectations, though it stops short of explicitly stating side effects or idempotency.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the key identifier ('same JSON as GET /accueil'), and every clause delivers value: what it is, what it returns, what content it covers, and when to use it. There is zero fluff.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is fully sufficient. It explains the tool's role, content, and usage timing. Nothing an agent needs to correctly call it is missing, and it routes the agent away from paid routes effectively.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). The description doesn't reference parameters, which is appropriate. Per the baseline for 0 params, a 4 is warranted; nothing more is needed.

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 tool as the 'Kairos welcome salon' with a specific resource ('same JSON as GET /accueil') and explains its contents: who runs the service, how to talk, costs, and gathering info. It also differentiates from paid routes, so an agent can distinguish this from siblings like contact_kairos.

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 description gives a clear when-to-use directive: 'Start here before paid routes.' It also calls itself the 'free front door,' implying it should precede any paid tools. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusions, but the context is strong enough for correct selection.

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