get_provision_at_date

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns compact temporal metadata without repeating text and does not reconstruct old wording. This clarifies the output nature and a limitation, complementing the annotations without contradiction.

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 long, front-loads the main purpose, and includes an alternative tool and a limitation. Every sentence carries necessary information with no filler 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, usage direction, and a key limitation, and the output schema presumably documents the return fields. The only slight omission is explicit mention of act_code, but the name and parameters make it reasonably inferable, and the description is otherwise complete for a read-only temporal check tool.

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 description clarifies that target_date is an ISO date and that an article is the indexed version, but it does not explain the role of act_code. With schema description coverage at 0%, this leaves one parameter not explicitly documented, though the other two gain some semantic context beyond their names.

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 checks whether an indexed article version was applicable to an ISO date ('Contrôle si la version indexée d'un article était applicable à une date ISO'). It also differentiates itself from get_article by noting it returns temporal metadata rather than full text, making the purpose specific and distinct among siblings.

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 directs users to call get_article when full content is needed ('appeler get_article si le contenu intégral est nécessaire') and warns that it does not reconstruct replaced wording ('Ne reconstitue pas un ancien libellé remplacé'). This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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