generate_charges_recuperablesGenerate the list of recoverable charges (decret 87-713). Few or no fields required. FR: charges recuperables. 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?
Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns a link to view/download the PDF and that few fields are needed, which informs the agent about the primary behavior. However, it does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, or how the payload is used, 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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and subject, followed by the return-link behavior and a French translation. Every sentence contributes distinct information, and there is no redundancy or 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?
For a simple generation tool, the description covers the purpose, input minimalism, and return format adequately. However, the lack of concrete payload field guidance and the absence of an output schema make it incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke the tool, especially when optional fields might be needed.
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 input schema's single 'payload' parameter is an opaque object that points back to the description for field details, but the description only says 'few or no fields required' without listing any possible field names, formats, or examples. This leaves the agent without enough information to correctly populate the payload if any fields are needed.
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 action ('Generate') and the resource ('list of recoverable charges'), with a legal reference (decret 87-713). It distinguishes this tool from sibling PDF generation tools by its specific subject matter and explicitly mentions the output is a link to a PDF.
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 for creating a recoverable charges list but does not explicitly compare it to sibling tools or state when not to use it. The note 'Few or no fields required' offers some input guidance, but there is no mention of alternatives or exclusion criteria.
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.