Décrire un modèle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data and the 'Lecture seule : ne crée rien' clause is largely redundant. The description does add genuine behavioral value with the 'ne les inventez pas' constraint on field values and the enumeration of what the response contains, which goes beyond the 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the return contents and then the usage rules, with no filler sentences. The parenthetical field enumeration is somewhat long but each item informs what the agent must collect from the user, so it earns its place; only slight tightening is possible.

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 an output schema present the description needn't document return values, yet it still summarizes them; annotations carry the safety profile; and the single required parameter is fully specified in the schema. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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% and the single 'template' parameter already carries an enum plus a description pointing back to list_templates, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces slug provenance but adds no format, casing, or validity detail beyond what the schema provides; 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 ('Décrit un modèle') and then enumerates the exact contents returned: fillable fields with their attributes, auto-computed fields, and signatories. This lets an agent distinguish it immediately from list_templates (which only lists) and generate_document (which produces the document).

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?

Explicitly states the sequencing rule ('À appeler avant generate_document') and the reason ('pour savoir quelles informations demander à l'utilisateur'), plus a negative instruction not to fabricate values. It also routes the agent to list_templates for slug discovery, naming the alternative and the condition that selects it.

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