Lister un référentiel (codes ↔ libellés)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals the tool returns a mapping (codes ↔ libellés), hints at large result sets for 'communes', and implies the need for client-side filtering. No contradictions; the description enriches the agent's understanding of behavior.

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: four sentences in French with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second justifies importance, the third lists all types, and the fourth provides a practical tip. Every sentence adds value. Information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return type (codes ↔ libellés) and includes all necessary usage context (available types, tip for long lists). The annotations cover safety and idempotency. A slight gap is the lack of detail on output format or pagination behavior, but the description is sufficient for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal added meaning beyond the schema: it echoes the 'filtre' parameter indirectly by suggesting filtering for 'communes' and mentions the default limit is 100 (not in schema). However, it does not elaborate on the exact semantics or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Restitue' meaning 'returns') and resource ('référentiel de codes'), clearly stating it lists a reference table of code-to-label mappings for job offers. It explicitly enumerates all 16 available types, making the tool's scope unambiguous. The description distinguishes this from sibling tools (e.g., ft_search_offres, ft_search_metiers) by focusing on static reference data rather than search or prediction.

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 explains when to use the tool: 'Indispensable pour traduire un nom en code' and provides concrete examples (finding INSEE code of a town, contract type codes). It also offers a practical tip for handling the 'communes' list. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the context sufficiently guides the agent.

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