generate_cautionnementGenerate a guarantor's guarantee deed. Fields: guarantor_name, tenant_name, landlord_name, property_address, rent, duration. FR: acte de cautionnement (garant). 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: returning a link to view/download the PDF. However, it does not mention side effects, whether the document is persisted, or any system permissions required, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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 concise, with two sentences covering the action, fields, and output behavior. It front-loads the primary purpose and includes a French localization note, with no redundant or filler content.
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?
The description covers the main aspects: what the tool does, the input fields, and the output PDF link. However, it does not specify optional vs required fields, format expectations (e.g., rent currency, duration units), or how this tool differs from other document generators, leaving gaps for an agent to fully understand usage.
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 is generic (a payload object with additionalProperties), so the description compensates by enumerating the six specific fields (guarantor_name, tenant_name, landlord_name, property_address, rent, duration). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema, though it does not specify types, units, or requiredness.
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 guarantor's guarantee deed (acte de cautionnement) and outputs a PDF. It lists the relevant fields, making it distinct from sibling document generators. The verb 'Generate' plus the specific document type provides unambiguous purpose.
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 usage when a guarantee deed is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other document generators, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The purpose is self-evident, but no alternative guidance is offered.
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.