Plan d'action du dernier audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond this: actions are sorted by priority then estimated gain, and each action has a stable key and tracking status. This is useful for an agent deciding whether and how to use the result.

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 a single sentence with the key information front-loaded: the resource, the scope, and the ordering. The endpoint at the end is slightly redundant with the tool name but adds a useful reference. No wasted words, though the phrase 'Plan d'action du dernier audit' and 'Actions du dernier rapport collecté' are somewhat repetitive.

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 simple read-only list operation with optional filters, the description conveys the core return semantics: actions from the latest audit, sorted, with stable keys and status. There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of telling the agent what to expect, and it does so adequately. It does not mention pagination or limits, but those are less critical for this type of tool.

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 100%, so all parameters (siteId, status, priority) already have descriptions. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as filter behavior or default values. This meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 identifies the resource ('actions du dernier rapport collecté') and the scope ('dernier audit'), and the sorting criteria make the tool's behavior recognizable. It does not use an explicit verb like 'liste' but the meaning is clear from the name and phrasing. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as updateAuditAction or listAuditSections, but the resource is distinct enough.

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 implies the tool is used to retrieve the action plan from the most recent collected audit report. There is no explicit statement about when to prefer this over updateAuditAction or listAuditReports, nor any exclusion criteria. The context is understandable but the guidance is not explicit.

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