info

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does make one useful behavioral claim ('Lecture seule' = read-only) plus return semantics per branch (accuracy, age, Maps link; received/made/missed calls; calendar over N days). It does not address permissions/consent requirements, rate limits, or what `limit` controls. It adds real but partial behavioral 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?

Very compact and front-loaded with the read-only constraint, then a tight per-branch enumeration with no filler. It borders on terse rather than wasteful, which is appropriate for a dispatcher tool. The only friction is that the prose is in French while the tool and sibling names are English.

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 four-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description partially substitutes for a return schema by describing each branch's payload. But `limit` behavior, pagination/truncation, and any permission or auth preconditions are absent, leaving the agent unable to predict result volume or access requirements.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully documents the conditional semantics of `query` (only meaningful for contacts) and `days` (only for calendar), which the schema does not express. However `limit` is never mentioned, and the `kind` enum values are already in the schema, so the coverage of four undocumented parameters is incomplete.

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 never states the tool's overall purpose in one verb+resource clause; instead it enumerates the four `kind` branches (location, calls, contacts, calendar) and what each returns. Those branch explanations are concrete, but the tool's identity as a whole is only implied by the vague name 'info' plus 'Lecture seule'. No differentiation from siblings like `look`, `phone`, or `messages` is offered.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named despite many overlapping siblings (`look`, `phone`, `messages`, `notifications`). The branch descriptions imply what each `kind` yields, which hints at selection, but nothing tells an agent which tool to reach for versus `phone` or `messages`.

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