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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure on its own. It does reveal useful behavior: prices include delivery and new/used results are separated. It does not mention side effects, data sources, or how thresholds affect results, but the core behavior is stated.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler or repetition. The main outcome is front-loaded, though the phrasing is telegraphic.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with four parameters and zero parameter documentation, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently set 'detail' and 'used_threshold' correctly.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. While 'article' and 'zipcode' are somewhat self-evident, 'detail' and 'used_threshold' have no meaning clarified anywhere, making correct invocation unreliable.

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 states the tool's result: the best delivered price for a single article, with new and used items separated. It is understandable on its own, but it lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate from the sibling tools price_project and list_sources.

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 phrase 'pour un seul article' implies this tool is for single-item price lookups, which contrasts with the project-oriented price_project and list-oriented list_sources siblings. However, there is no explicit instruction about when to use this tool versus those alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state what the tool reports (enabled state, remaining quota, outage status), which conveys a read-only intent, but it never explicitly says the operation is non-mutating or describes side-effect implications. An output schema exists to cover the return shape, but the description adds only the status facets.

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 French sentence conveys the core purpose efficiently with no filler. It could feasibly add usage nuance, but for a parameterless status tool the brevity is reasonable and not wasteful.

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?

An output schema is present, so return-value structure is covered by structured data, and there are no parameters to document. The main gap is the absence of guidance on when to invoke it relative to the pricing siblings; for an agent to use it correctly, that routing context would make it complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain; schema coverage is vacuously 100%. Per the baseline for a zero-parameter tool, a 4 is appropriate since the description need not compensate for any undocumented inputs.

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 clear verb-plus-resource purpose: report the status of each source, listing the exact status facets it exposes (enabled, remaining hourly quota, active outage). This is specific enough to be useful. It distinguishes from the pricing siblings implicitly, though it never names them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to call this tool versus price_project or best_price. An agent must infer from the sibling names (which relate to pricing) that this status tool serves a different purpose. There is no mention of prerequisites, ordering, or situations where this tool should not be used.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals what the tool returns (best new/used per article, order plan minimizing shipping, and difference from naive total) and that it only produces a plan, not an actual purchase. This gives a good sense of its side-effect-free nature, though it does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or dependency on external sources.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that leads with the main purpose and then gives behavior and examples. It is not overly long and efficiently communicates the core function. Minor redundancy in repeating the return list twice, but overall it is concise and front-loaded.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, return value format is not required, but the description is incomplete for a 5-argument tool with zero schema descriptions. The lack of parameter explanations (especially 'detail' and 'used_threshold') means an agent cannot confidently set non-default values. While the main scope is clear, the missing parameter semantics make it incomplete for full usage.

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 0%, so the description must clarify all parameters. It does explain the format for the 'articles' parameter (quantity or cap), which is the only required field. However, it leaves 'detail', 'zipcode', 'radius_km', and 'used_threshold' undefined. The defaults exist in the schema, but their meaning is not explained, leaving the agent without guidance for non-default values. The description compensates only for one of five parameters.

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 states the tool's purpose: pricing a list of articles at best delivered price and returning a grouped order plan, explicitly calling itself the main entry point. This differentiates it from sibling tools (best_price, list_sources) that are presumably lower-level operations. It also explains the accepted article syntax (quantity or cap), giving concrete examples.

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 states that this is the primary entry point and that a single call handles the entire project, implying it should be used instead of composing multiple calls. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer best_price or list_sources, nor does it mention exclusions (e.g., for single-item queries). It provides clear context but no explicit alternatives.

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