Noticiel

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only indicates the output is a download link but omits details on error handling (e.g., if PDF not found), authentication requirements, or any side effects. The behavior is stated but not elaborated.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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 tool with two required parameters, the description is adequate but incomplete: it does not describe the return format or structure of the download link. Given no output schema, the agent lacks information on what the response looks like, which is necessary for downstream usage.

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 0%, yet the description adds only the names 'marque' and 'modèle' without any additional meaning, examples, format constraints, or required status. The parameter names are self-explanatory but the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 specifies the action ('trouve le lien de téléchargement'), the resource ('PDF d'une notice'), the platform ('Noticiel'), and the required inputs ('marque' and 'modèle'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_notice or search_notices by focusing on downloading 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions for use. It merely states what the tool does without contextualizing its role among siblings.

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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool returns (text + PDF link) but omits details like error handling (e.g., invalid slug), authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the notice must exist. This lack of transparency could mislead an agent about edge cases.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and includes the source. Every word is functional and earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the input (URL or slug) and output (text + PDF link). However, it could be more complete by specifying the return format (e.g., JSON structure) or potential error responses, but given the simplicity, it suffices.

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% with a clear description of the only parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., no format constraints or examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already sufficiently documents the 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?

The description clearly states the action (retrieves full content), the resource (a Noticiel notice), and the inputs (URL or slug). It distinguishes from siblings like search_notices (search) and find_pdf (PDF-specific) by specifying 'full content including text and PDF link'.

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: when you need the full content of a specific notice by URL/slug. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, but the sibling tools provide context (e.g., use search_notices for discovery, find_pdf for PDF-only). The guidance is adequate but not 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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions sorting by volume, but omits other behavioral traits like read-only nature, pagination behavior (despite a limit parameter), handling of empty results, or data freshness. Minimal value beyond the schema.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It could better integrate parameter information or context. However, there is no extraneous content.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and one undocumented parameter, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose but fails to explain the limit parameter, return format, or edge cases. Inadequate for effective agent usage.

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 0%, meaning the 'limit' parameter has no description in the schema. The description does not mention the parameter at all, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. No semantics added.

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 verb 'listes' and the resource 'categories de produits', with additional context of scope 'couvertes par Noticiel' and ordering 'triees par volume'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_pdf, get_notice, list_marques, and search_notices.

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 use this tool vs alternatives is provided. There are no explicit context cues or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer based solely on the tool name and description.

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 must carry the full burden. It discloses sorting and filterability but does not mention that the tool is read-only, any authentication needs, or rate limits. However, for a simple list operation, the behavioral disclosure is adequate.

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 a single, concise sentence that includes all essential information without any fluff or 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 (list operation with two parameters and no output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains the resource, ordering, and filterability. It could mention the return format (array of brand objects) but not doing so is acceptable.

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 adds meaning to the 'search' parameter by stating it's a filter, but the 'limit' parameter is not mentioned beyond its presence in the schema. This partial coverage results in a score of 3.

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 (list), resource (marques/brands), and additional details (with notice count, sorted by volume, filterable by search). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_categories and search_notices by specifically targeting brands.

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 context: use this tool to list brands sorted by volume, optionally filtered by search. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the clear purpose and sibling names provide sufficient 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 must convey behavioral traits. It mentions returning URLs and citing Noticiel, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, required permissions, rate limits, or limitations. Minimal behavioral detail.

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 succinct sentences in French: first explains the search action, second describes the return value and source citation. No filler, front-loaded, every sentence adds value.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description covers the basics of search and return format. However, it lacks guidance on pagination, ordering, relevance, or error handling. Adequate but not thorough.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds context about search criteria (keywords, brand, category) and output (URLs), but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 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 it searches for notices/manuals on Noticiel by keywords, brand, and/or category, returning matching entries with URLs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like find_pdf and get_notice as a search tool.

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 finding notices by criteria but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_pdf or get_notice. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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