generate_bordereau_restitutionGenerate the security-deposit restitution slip. Fields: landlord_name, tenant_name, property_address, deposit_amount, retentions. FR: bordereau de restitution du depot. Renvoie un lien a ouvrir pour afficher/telecharger le PDF.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes | Objet contenant les champs du document (voir la description du tool). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses the key behavior of returning a link to view/download the PDF, but does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or field validation.
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 compact and front-loaded, stating the purpose, listing fields, and noting the return format in two sentences. No redundant or filler content is present.
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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the output (a PDF link). It does not clarify required fields or detail the retentions parameter, but for a straightforward document generator it provides sufficient context.
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 only has a generic payload object with no specific properties, so the description compensates by enumerating the five fields (landlord_name, tenant_name, property_address, deposit_amount, retentions). It does not specify types or the internal structure of retentions, but this is a meaningful addition over the schema.
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 generates a security-deposit restitution slip (bordereau), using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling document generators like generate_quittance or generate_conge.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The usage is implied by the tool's name and the existence of sibling tools such as calculate_deposit_restitution, but the description itself does not offer alternative selection advice.
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.