check_address_risksGeocode an address and return an indicative summary of the commune's natural and technological risks (Georisques) + a link to the official ERRIAL tool. For the lease's mandatory risk annex. FR: etat des risques (ERNMT/ERRIAL), annexe obligatoire du bail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Adresse en texte libre, ex : '1 rue de Rivoli, 75001 Paris' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the result is an 'indicative summary' at the commune level and includes a link, setting expectations about scope and precision. It doesn't detail error handling or output format, but for a read-only lookup this is adequate.
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 concise sentences plus a French translation pack the essential action, use case, and output traits into minimal space. No filler.
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 simple one-parameter interface and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, the intended legal context, and the return structure (summary + link). A minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of failure modes, but that's not critical for this lookup 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?
The schema already fully describes the single `address` parameter with an example, giving 100% coverage. The description adds the geocoding behavior but no new format or syntax details, so it stays at baseline.
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 it geocodes an address and returns an indicative summary of the commune's natural and technological risks plus an ERRIAL link. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from all sibling tools dealing with rent, deposits, or lease documents.
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?
It provides clear context: 'For the lease's mandatory risk annex' and references ERNMT/ERRIAL, indicating when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the unique purpose makes it obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinct document generators or calculators, but check_rent_control and get_reference_rent both deal with rent control and could be confused, as could simulate_irl and simulate_irl_by_quarters. Descriptions mostly clarify boundaries, so only minor ambiguity exists.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., generate_quittance, check_address_risks, simulate_irl). The verbs vary by action but the structure is uniform and predictable across the entire set.
With 21 tools covering a broad but focused domain of French rental law, the count is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but each tool serves a distinct legal or calculation purpose. The scope is large but justified for a comprehensive rental toolkit.
The toolset covers the full lifecycle of a French residential lease: creation, amendments, termination, deposits, guarantors, inventories, rent receipts, unpaid rent, rent control, and rent revision. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.