Consultants disponibles pour un staffing

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing key behaviors: sorting by availability date, proposing priority profiles, and returning a runbook text for the model to execute. It also explains that competencies are mapped via a dictionary, adding meaningful operational context not present in 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?

The description is three sentences that efficiently convey purpose, options, behavior, and usage context. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tightened. The front-loading of the main verb and resource helps quick scanning.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description's mention of a runbook text return is crucial and covers the most important missing information. The description also covers sorting, filtering, and scope. It omits specifics about runbook format or edge cases, but given the annotations and rich schema, it is reasonably 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal semantic value by referring to 'compétences (texte libre)' and 'périmètre', but these concepts are already fully described in the schema. It does not significantly clarify parameter interpretation beyond what the schema offers.

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's function: finding internal resources available for staffing within a date window, with optional filters and sorting. It explicitly distinguishes itself from other tools by positioning as the tool-based equivalent of the MCP prompt `staffing_disponible`, making its unique role clear.

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 when to use this tool: as an alternative to the MCP prompt staffing_disponible, particularly for clients that handle MCP prompts poorly. It gives a clear usage context and the return behavior (runbook), but does not explicitly exclude other siblings or provide 'when not to use' guidance.

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