Retourne toutes les zones de livraison configurées, incluant les noms de zone, codes postaux et éventuels frais de livraison associés.

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

The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict (it implies a listing operation). However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or data format details. With annotations covering the read-only aspect, the description meets a minimal baseline but lacks additional useful disclosures.

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 extremely brief ('Liste des Lister les zones de livraison'), but this brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficient communication. It repeats the tool name without adding value, making it ineffective rather than concise. A single sentence could be improved with meaningful content.

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 optional parameter, read-only operation), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error handling, or any contextual nuances. While annotations cover the read-only aspect, the description does not adequately supplement the structured data, leaving gaps in understanding for the agent.

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 an enum and default, but schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema lacks descriptions for this parameter. The description provides no information about parameters, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions. However, with only one parameter and a clear enum, the baseline is 3 as the schema itself is somewhat self-explanatory.

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 zones de livraison' is tautological and grammatically flawed, essentially restating the tool name 'data_list_delivery_zones' without adding meaningful clarification. While the title provides a clear purpose ('Retourne toutes les zones de livraison configurées...'), the description itself fails to articulate what the tool does beyond its name. This qualifies as a tautology with minimal added value.

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. There are multiple sibling tools (e.g., data_list_clients, data_list_products) that likely serve similar listing functions, but no context is given to differentiate this tool's specific use case. The absence of any usage instructions leaves the agent without direction.

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