Meilleur Code Parrainage

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing what data comes back per brand (parrain/filleul advantages, code, condition, verification date, fiche URL). It says nothing about behavior with unknown or duplicate brand names, which is the only remaining 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 dense sentence, front-loaded on the verb and cardinality, with every clause carrying information (scope, resource, returned fields). No filler and nothing buried at the end.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the compared fields; annotations handle the safety profile. Only the response shape (table vs list) and handling of unrecognized brands are unaddressed.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by scoping the array to 'marques de l'annuaire', i.e. brand names drawn from the directory, which is a real constraint on valid values rather than a restatement of minItems/maxItems.

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 (Comparer) and resource (marques de l'annuaire Meilleur Code Parrainage), and pins the operating range to 'de 2 à 5 marques', which implicitly separates it from the single-brand detail_offre and the search-oriented rechercher_offres. It also enumerates exactly what is compared (filleul/parrain advantages, code, condition, verification date, fiche URL).

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 2-to-5 bound implies 'use this when comparing several brands and not one', but the description never states when to prefer it over detail_offre or rechercher_offres, nor any exclusion. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. Because there is no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned content (code, benefits, condition, payment delay, verification date, official page) adds genuinely useful behavioral/output context. It omits auth/data-freshness caveats but does not need to repeat the annotation-covered traits.

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 front-loaded sentence that puts the verb and resource first. The trailing field enumeration is long but each item earns its place by previewing the return content in the absence of an output schema. Slightly heavy but no wasted framing.

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 read-only, idempotent, single-parameter detail lookup, the description is nearly complete, and notably it compensates for the missing output schema by listing returned fields. The only gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance relative to siblings.

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% and the single "marque" parameter is documented with examples, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching-behavior detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ("Renvoie") and resource ("la fiche complète d'une marque"), so an agent can tell this is the detail/retrieval tool versus list-oriented siblings. It enumerates the returned fields, reinforcing what "detail" means. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like rechercher_offres or meilleures_offres.

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 only implied: returning the "fiche complète" suggests this is the tool for full per-brand details once a brand is known. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the five siblings. The agent must infer the routing.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description's only added value is disclosing the payload content (categories plus verified-offer counts per category); it says nothing about ordering, refresh behavior, or whether counts are live, which is acceptable given the read-only annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and the returned detail second, with no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, non-open-world listing tool with no output schema, the description conveys what the agent will get back (categories and per-category verified offer counts) and requires no further preconditions. Only minor gaps remain, such as result ordering or volume, which are not critical for calling it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument, whole-directory listing rather than a filtered query, and there are no parameter semantics left to explain.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Liste les catégories de l'annuaire') and adds that each entry includes the count of verified offers, so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the close sibling 'offres_par_categorie', which also deals with categories, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to alternatives such as 'offres_par_categorie' or 'rechercher_offres'. The agent must infer that this is the discovery/entry-point call for browsing categories by name alone.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating what the response contains (rank, reason for selection, address) — important since no output schema exists — but says nothing about result count, freshness window, or whether the set can be empty.

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 front-loaded sentence naming the resource, its curated/monthly nature, and the fields returned. Every clause earns its place and there is no 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?

With no parameters, a fully covered empty schema, and annotations handling the safety profile, the description covers what an agent needs: the source of the selection and the shape of the results. Minor omissions (how many offers, whether the list can be empty, ordering guarantee) keep it short of a 5.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so by the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the absence of filtering, which it does not claim to support.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it returns the monthly curated selection of top referral offers, including rank, selection reason, and each listing's address. This is clearly distinguishable from search-oriented siblings like rechercher_offres or offres_par_categorie, though none of them are named 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?

Usage is implied by the nature of the tool (call it when you want the editorially-ranked top offers of the month), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives such as rechercher_offres. The agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond that: only "vérifiées" (verified) offers are returned, implying a quality filter. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result shape, so credit is limited.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with the example categories parenthetically placed rather than buried. No filler, though the long example list is slightly padded and could be trimmed.

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 read/list tool with rich annotations the description is adequate, but there is no output schema and the description does not describe the return shape, result ordering, or how "limite" interacts with pagination. An agent knows what the tool does but not fully what it gets back.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces what "categorie" means by enumerating eight example values, but the listed examples duplicate the schema's own example ("Banque") and the "limite" parameter is never mentioned in the description.

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 states a specific verb ("Liste") and resource ("offres de parrainage vérifiées") and scopes it to a category of the Meilleur Code Parrainage directory. It is clearly distinguishable from detail_offre (single offer) and lister_categories (taxonomy listing), though it never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary.

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 category-scoping phrasing: an agent can infer this is the tool for browsing offers within one category. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternatives (rechercher_offres for keyword search, meilleures_offres for top picks) that would help disambiguate selection.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: only 'vérifiées' offers are returned, and each result carries the code, both parties' benefits, verification date and source URL. Pagination/result-size behavior is not addressed, keeping it below 5.

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, zero waste: the first front-loads what is searched and where, the second enumerates the returned fields. Every clause earns its place, especially the return-field sentence given the absence of an output schema.

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, the description usefully covers return values, and annotations plus a 100%-covered schema handle safety and inputs. Remaining gaps are minor: result-count behavior, matching strictness, and how results relate to the sibling browsing/comparison tools.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the 1-20 range and 10 default for 'limite'. The description restates the 'requete' semantics (brand name or keyword) but adds no syntax, matching behavior, or multi-term guidance beyond 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?

States a specific verb (Recherche) and resource (offres de parrainage vérifiées within the Meilleur Code Parrainage directory) plus the query modality (nom de marque ou mot-clé). It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as comparer_offres or offres_par_categorie, which also surface offers.

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 phrase 'par nom de marque ou mot-clé' implies when the tool is appropriate (keyword/brand lookup), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no pointer to comparer_offres, detail_offre, meilleures_offres or offres_par_categorie for the browsing/comparison cases.

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