Liste les points relais disponibles pour la livraison des commandes, avec leur nom, adresse, ville et code postal.

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide - no information about rate limits, authentication needs, or what specific data is returned. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so it gets a baseline score.

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?

While extremely brief, the description 'Liste des Lister les points relais' is grammatically incorrect and appears to be a translation error rather than intentional conciseness. It doesn't effectively communicate the tool's purpose despite its brevity, making it under-specified 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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description should provide more context about what data is returned. The title mentions name, address, city, and postal code, but the description itself doesn't convey this information. With annotations covering only the read-only aspect, the description fails to complete the picture of what this tool provides.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description provides no information about the 'format' parameter or its options. However, since there's only one parameter with clear enum values in the schema, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 points relais' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name/title in broken French. While the title provides specific information about listing relay points with name, address, city, and postal code, the description itself adds no meaningful clarification about what the tool does beyond repeating 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. With sibling tools like data_list_delivery_zones and data_list_delivery_men, there's no indication of when this specific relay point listing tool is appropriate versus those other delivery-related tools.

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