Ma Copro En Règle

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 only lists returned data categories and says nothing about whether this is a read operation, whether results are paginated, what auth is required, or what happens when a commune matches nothing. For a no-annotation tool this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single compact sentence fragment that front-loads the resource and then the facets. No filler, though the trailing list of six facets is dense and could be trimmed or grouped.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description does useful work by enumerating the returned facets, which is more than most definitions offer. However, it never clarifies the aggregated/nature of the response (counts vs. lists) or the read-only semantics, leaving gaps an agent would want filled.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including examples ('Vincennes', 'Paris 17e') and the INSEE-code alternative. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description names the resource precisely (the co-ownerships of a single commune) and enumerates the facets returned (count, no collective DPE, expiring mandates, F/G housing, volunteer syndics, top syndics). This implicitly distinguishes it from get_copropriete (single building) and get_departement (higher level). It lacks an explicit verb and does not name any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as search_coproprietes or get_copropriete. The agent must infer that this is the commune-level aggregation entry point purely from the resource name.

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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the returned report (seven obligations, per-obligation states, identity sheet), which is valuable given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about read-only nature, error behaviour for an unknown immat, or data freshness.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then enumerates the returned content. Every clause conveys information; the only mild weakness is that the list is a run-on that trails off with an ellipsis.

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 compensates reasonably by enumerating the report's contents and the possible obligation states. It is close to complete for a single-key lookup, missing only edge-case and freshness behaviour.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains the immat format (registration number or slug). The description adds no additional meaning about the key, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage 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?

The description names a specific resource (a copropriété) and details what the response contains: seven compliance obligations with their state, required actions, and the building's identity sheet. It is far more informative than a restatement of the name. However, it never contrasts itself with the sibling tools (search_coproprietes, get_syndic), so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus search_coproprietes (which presumably locates the immat) or get_syndic. Usage is only weakly implied by the singular lookup key. An agent gets no explicit routing guidance.

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, and it says nothing beyond subject matter: no indication that it is a read-only lookup, no rate limits, pagination, or result-size expectations. For a data-retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded. No filler, though it is arguably too terse to resolve the ambiguity of 'chiffres'.

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 tool is simple (one required param, no output schema, no nesting), and the schema covers the input, so little is strictly required. However, the description never clarifies what 'les chiffres' actually are (counts vs. aggregate metrics vs. records), which is the main thing an agent needs to judge relevance.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema (with examples 33, 75, 2A, 974). The description reinforces the valid code range (01–976, 2A, 2B) and thus adds marginal value, so the 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?

It states the resource (copropriété data for a French department) but the verb is vague — 'les chiffres' could mean counts, statistics, or a listing, so an agent cannot tell exactly what is returned. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_commune and get_copropriete by operating at the department level, but does not say so explicitly.

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 guidance on when to choose this over get_commune, get_copropriete, or search_coproprietes. The department scope is implied by the name and description but no condition or alternative is stated.

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 behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it is implicitly a read operation but never says so, and says nothing about what happens if neither name nor siret is supplied (both are optional). No auth, rate-limit, or response-shape context is offered.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no filler, which is good, but it is a noun-phrase list rather than a front-loaded purpose statement, so the reader must parse the whole enumeration before understanding the action. Adequately sized, poorly led.

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-parameter lookup with a fully documented schema, the description's enumeration of the returned attributes (buildings managed, expiring mandates, missing collective DPE, covered communes) partially compensates for the absent output schema. However, with no annotations and no verb or usage context, it remains thin for an agent deciding whether and how to call 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%: both `name` and `siret` are documented in the schema, including the 14-digit SIRET format and the 'or name' alternation hint. The description adds nothing about the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does the work.

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 names the resource (a professional copropriété syndic) and enumerates its key attributes, which gives useful domain grounding, but it never states a retrieval verb — it reads as a data-dictionary fragment rather than an action. It also does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like get_copropriete or get_commune. The purpose is inferable from the name plus the field list, but it is not stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_copropriete, get_commune, get_departement, or search_coproprietes. No condition, prerequisite, or exclusion is given. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and the enumerated fields.

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 behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned fields (immatriculation, nom, adresse, commune, nombre de lots, syndic), which is useful, but it says nothing about read-only nature, matching behavior (accent/partial matching), result ordering, or the 12-result ceiling beyond what the schema's limit parameter already documents.

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, front-loaded with the action and searchable fields, then the return payload. Zero filler; the inline examples earn their space by clarifying input formats.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the returned fields, making it complete enough to call correctly. Minor gaps remain around matching semantics and result ordering, but nothing essential for invocation 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by giving three concrete query formats ('12 rue Mirabeau Vincennes', 'Le Steir Vannes', 'AB8299521') that disambiguate the string vs. address vs. registration-number modes of the single query parameter.

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 ('Trouver') and resource ('une copropriété française') with the searchable fields enumerated, plus concrete query examples. It never names the sibling get_copropriete or explains how this differs from fetching a single record by ID, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the accepted query forms (name, address, commune, registration number), which tells the agent what inputs are valid but not when to prefer this tool over get_copropriete or get_commune. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are stated.

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