Recherche un assureur ou un courtier destinataire du constat, par son nom. Renvoie les noms exacts à utiliser dans le champ destinataire.assureur de constat_renseigner. Si l'assureur du conducteur n'apparaît pas, utilisez « Autre » et renseignez destinataire.email_courtier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recherche | No | Début du nom de l'assureur. Vide pour obtenir la liste des partenaires. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable integration context (what to do with the result, fallback behavior) beyond annotations, but does not disclose deeper behavioral details like pagination or response format, which is acceptable for a simple lookup.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then provides integration and fallback details. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary repetition.
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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, integration with a sibling tool, and fallback behavior. Annotations provide safety context. This is complete for an agent to invoke the tool 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 input schema has one parameter ('recherche') with a clear description ('Début du nom de l'assureur. Vide pour obtenir la liste des partenaires.'), resulting in 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond reinforcing 'par son nom', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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's function: searching for an insurer or broker by name for the constat, and returning exact names for a specific field. It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing constat_renseigner and the destinataire.assureur field.
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?
Explicit guidance is provided: use the returned names in destinataire.assureur of constat_renseigner, and if the insurer is not found, use 'Autre' and fill destinataire.email_courtier. This gives clear when-to-use and fallback instructions.
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.
Each constat_* tool corresponds to a distinct phase of the accident statement workflow—starting, filling, sketching, signing, status checking, finalizing, canceling—with no two tools overlapping in purpose. The two guide-related tools (search, fetch) are clearly separate from the workflow tools.
The constat_ prefix provides a recognizable pattern, but the suffix alternates between verbs (demarrer, renseigner, finaliser, annuler) and nouns (circonstances, croquis, signatures, statut, assureurs). Additionally, the two guide tools (fetch, search) break the pattern entirely, mixing languages and conventions.
With 11 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose: each tool serves a clear step in the constat process and the two guide tools complement the primary workflow without redundancy. The count is within the ideal 3–15 range and does not feel heavy or thin.
The workflow is well covered: start, fill, sketch, sign, monitor status, finalize, and cancel. A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated 'get full constat contents' tool (statut only shows missing fields and signature state), but the core lifecycle is otherwise complete.
