Avantages d'une ressource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns a list ('Liste des avantages') and gives example categories, but does not discuss pagination, ordering, or potential missing data. This is minimal but acceptable given annotation coverage.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the action in the first sentence, then lists the argument and return type. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the description fully covers what is needed: it names the input (resource ID), explains what is returned (list of advantages), and gives examples of what those advantages are. No further context is necessary.

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%, fully describing the id parameter with pattern and description. The description repeats 'ID de la ressource' without adding additional syntax or formatting details, so it adds no value beyond the schema. 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Récupère' and clearly identifies the resource as 'avantagages associés à une ressource', with concrete examples (tickets restaurant, mutuelle, véhicule, primes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like positionings or projects, which serve different sub-entities.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need the list of advantages for a given resource ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous given the sibling tool names and the resource-specific focus.

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