Fiche d'un métier ROME

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's disclosure of subscription requirement adds some context beyond annotations. However, it does not elaborate on other behavioral aspects like rate limits or data freshness. No contradictions with 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?

The description is only two sentences: one for the core functionality with example, and one for the prerequisite. No redundant words. Front-loaded with purpose and example. Excellent conciseness.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, code format, subscription requirement. It does not describe the response format parameter, but that is covered by schema enum. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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 50%: 'code' parameter has a description and pattern, 'response_format' has an enum but no description. The description adds meaning for the 'code' parameter (format example) but does not mention 'response_format' at all. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does some work but description could add more.

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 'Récupère' (retrieves) and the resource 'fiche d'un métier ROME 4.0 par son code'. It specifies the code format (5 characters, ex. 'M1607') and what is included (libellé, définition, accès, arborescence). This is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings like ft_search_metiers.

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 mentions the prerequisite of subscription to the API. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling 'ft_get_fiche_metier', which appears to have a very similar purpose. No explicit when-not or alternatives are given.

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