QUAND il faut vérifier qu'un artisan est en règle avant de lui confier un chantier (RC Pro, décennale, URSSAF, KBIS). Checklist conformité artisan (app Conformité) : RC Pro, décennale, URSSAF, KBIS. POST /api/v1/documents/conformite-artisan. pieces[] = {type, statut, numero, date_expiration}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| siret | No | ||
| pieces | No | ||
| agence_nom | No | ||
| date_emission | No | ||
| entreprise_nom | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It mentions the HTTP method (POST) and the pieces array structure, but does not clarify read vs. write semantics, permissions needed, or side effects. The description implies a verification check, but POST suggests a create action, causing slight 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 moderately concise but mixes natural language with technical API details (endpoint, pieces structure). It front-loads with 'QUAND' (when), but the layout is somewhat unstructured and redundant (e.g., repeating the document list).
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 tool has 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It covers purpose and pieces structure but neglects other parameters and return value, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'pieces' parameter structure (type, statut, numero, date_expiration). The remaining 5 parameters (notes, siret, agence_nom, date_emission, entreprise_nom) are not described, leaving significant gaps.
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?
Description clearly states the tool verifies artisan compliance with required documents (RC Pro, décennale, URSSAF, KBIS) before assigning a project. It specifies the verb 'vérifier' and resource 'conformité artisan', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'bonnes_pratiques'.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'QUAND il faut vérifier qu'un artisan est en règle avant de lui confier un chantier'. It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives.
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 by purpose (e.g., quittance_loyer vs relance_impaye, or relance_facture_client vs relance_impaye). A few pairs like bon_intervention and fiche_mission could cause confusion, but detailed descriptions help resolve ambiguity.
Tool names mix French and English, and use inconsistent patterns: some are noun-based (annonce_location, quittance_loyer), some verb-based (decide_campagne, obtenir_cle_api), and the cao_* tools use a prefix convention. Still readable but not uniform.
41 tools is excessive for most servers, even one covering real estate and CAD. While the breadth is justified by multiple subdomains, the sheer number makes the surface hard to navigate and suggests possible over-fragmentation.
The tool set covers a wide range: rental lifecycle (annonce, EDL, quittance, relance), owner reporting, artisan documents, fiscal synthesis, CAD generation and verification, outreach, and guides. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tenant/property CRUD), but for a document-generation server it is quite complete.
