PariteCK

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the strict validation stance — the tool rejects rather than guesses, so applicability is never inferred from incomplete input — but says nothing about return shape, permissions, or any other behavior.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the usage condition and the required-parameter constraint front-loaded. Efficient, though the rejection clause is somewhat verbose.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should also describe what the readiness assessment actually returns or evaluates. It covers usage and validation strictness but leaves the output/assessment content unexplained, so it is only partially complete for a six-parameter 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 the schema already documents all six parameters including the two required ones. The description only reinforces that country and headcount are required and that mis-named/missing args are rejected, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and domain: a first-pass readiness check for French/EU pay transparency obligations. This distinguishes it from request_demo_lead and the other siblings, though the framing leans on the 'before a demo' angle rather than a standalone definition.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when a user wants a first-pass readiness check ... before requesting a demo'). However, it gives no when-not conditions or named alternatives beyond the implicit contrast with the demo-request sibling.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond the schema: a privacy guarantee that private company or employee data is never returned. However, it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior, so it only partially covers what an annotation-free read tool should.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the usage condition is front-loaded and the privacy caveat follows. The phrase 'needs the full public text' is slightly padded but harmless. Efficient overall.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the dependency on search results, and a key privacy boundary. It is nearly complete; only behavioral detail like error handling or auth would improve it.

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%, with the single 'id' parameter documented as 'Public page id returned by search.' The description reinforces that the id comes from search, but adds no format, syntax, or sourcing detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb (fetch) and resource (full public text for a specific PariteCK page), and explicitly scopes it to pages that came back from search. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'search' tool, which presumably returns page listings rather than full text. Not quite a 5 because the resource noun is a bit product-specific, but an agent can tell what it does.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context: call it when the agent needs the full public text for a page that search already returned. This implicitly defines the prerequisite (a page id from search) and rules out blind fetching. It doesn't state explicit exclusions or alternatives, which keeps it below a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that no contact details are transmitted, that the return value is a URL the user must act on, and that PariteCK refuses assistant-relayed personal data for consent reasons. These are non-obvious behavioral constraints an agent could not infer.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the return behavior, then the hard privacy constraint. Slightly repetitive in restating the no-personal-data rule twice, but the emphasis is defensible for a consent-critical instruction.

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 two-optional-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers trigger, return value, and the critical restriction. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters are optional and fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already says (companyName as anonymous stat, primaryTopic enum).

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?

States a specific action (returns the URL of the PariteCK contact form) triggered by a recognizable user intent (wants a demo, quote, meeting, or to be contacted). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like assess_readiness or search without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (user asks for a demo, quote, meeting, or contact) and explicit when-not / how-to-behave (never relay personal data, show the URL and let the user fill the form). The alternative behavior is spelled out rather than inferred.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns the latest public Egapro declaration including global score and 5 current indicators, plus framing of the move to 7 indicators. It also clarifies data limitations and the non-legal nature of the output.

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 paragraph that front-loads the usage scenario and clearly states the tool's function. It is reasonably concise, though it could be slightly tighter without losing clarity. No wasted sentences.

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 specialized nature of the tool (French gender-equality index reform), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to invoke it. It covers the input, output content, and important disclaimers. No output schema is present, but the description fills the gap by detailing the return values.

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 single parameter 'query' is fully described in the input schema (SIREN or company name, min 3 chars). The description repeats this information but does not add extra semantics or examples beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to simulate the impact of the 2027 French gender-equality index reform for a French employer or advisor, or to look up a company's current published index by SIREN or company name. It differentiates from siblings by focusing specifically on the Egapro index and reform.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool (when a French employer asks about the reform or wants to look up a company's index) and provides important context: it returns public data only, is an estimate for decision-support, not legal advice, and no private data.

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