Récupère la liste des modes de livraison disponibles dans la boutique : retrait en magasin, livraison à domicile, transporteur, etc..

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

The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which aligns with the list/retrieval action implied by the title. The description doesn't add behavioral details beyond this, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations (e.g., it doesn't suggest a write operation), so it's not scored lower. With annotations covering safety, the description adds minimal context.

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 overly concise to the point of being cryptic and grammatically flawed ('Liste des Lister'). It's not front-loaded with useful information and wastes space on repetition. While short, it lacks structure and clarity, making it inefficient rather than appropriately concise.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'delivery_men' refers to (e.g., delivery methods as per the title), the return format, or how it fits with siblings. The title adds some context, but the description itself is inadequate for a list tool, even with annotations covering read-only behavior.

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 input schema has one parameter 'format' with enum values and a default, but schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no descriptions in the schema itself. The description provides no information about parameters, not even mentioning the 'format' parameter or its purpose. Since there's only one parameter and the schema defines it clearly with enums, the baseline is 3, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Liste des Lister les méthodes de livraison' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'data_list_delivery_men' in French, with grammatical errors ('Liste des Lister'). It doesn't clearly articulate a specific verb-action or differentiate from sibling tools like 'data_list_delivery_zones' or 'data_list_payments_modes'. The title provides more context ('Récupère la liste des modes de livraison disponibles dans la boutique'), but the description itself fails to add value beyond the name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or specific contexts for invocation. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used instead of 'data_list_delivery_zones' for delivery method listings or how it relates to other list tools. There's complete absence of usage instructions.

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