pennylane_multi_dossier_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait — that requests are dispatched in parallel across dossiers. However, nothing is said about partial-failure behavior (what happens if one dossier 404s or rejects auth), rate limits, or result ordering, which are the traits an agent most needs before fanning out.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does followed by the use case. No filler, no restatement of the name.

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?

With rich annotations, a full-coverage input schema, and an output schema, the description only needs to convey purpose and routing. It does that, but leaves the multi-dossier-specific failure and concurrency semantics unaddressed, which is the one area structured fields cannot cover.

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%, so all three parameters (dossier_slugs, endpoint, params) are already documented in the schema. The description's examples (balances, comptes, exercices) loosely hint at valid endpoints but add no syntax or format detail beyond the schema's own '/me', '/ledger_accounts', '/trial_balance' examples, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Exécute une requête GET en parallèle sur plusieurs dossiers'. The 'multi_dossier' framing and the parallel fan-out clearly separate it from the many single-dossier siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives the condition for use with concrete examples ('comparer des données entre clients ou consolider des informations (ex: balances, comptes, exercices)'). It states when to reach for this tool but never states when not to, e.g. preferring the single-dossier tool for one client.

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