Rechercher un métier ROME

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: the search is case/acent-insensitive, the ROME codes are 5 characters, and the referential contains 532 métiers. This goes beyond annotations but could elaborate on error handling or rate limits.

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 paragraph but logically structured: main purpose, output format, interoperability, search behavior, alternative recommendation, and prerequisite. Each sentence contributes meaning, though it could be slightly more terse without losing clarity.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers input, behavior, output usage, and alternatives. It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand when and how to use the tool effectively.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining how the output codes are used in other tools, providing examples for the query parameter, and stating the case-insensitivity behavior. This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 'recherche' (search), the resource 'métier dans le référentiel ROME 4.0', and the output 'codes ROME correspondants'. It differentiates from the sibling tool ft_predict_rome by noting when to use the alternative for finer semantic matching.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (free text search), when not to (prefer ft_predict_rome for semantic matching), and provides context about how results feed other tools (ft_search_offres, ft_search_entreprises). Also mentions a subscription requirement, which is a necessary prerequisite.

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