Statistiques Assemblee

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral caveat that annotations cannot convey: the adopted-share figure is an estimate based on a sample spread across the whole legislature, warning the agent not to treat it as an exact count.

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 one-line summary of what the figures cover is front-loaded, followed by a single scoping sentence that also carries the important sampling caveat. No filler, and the ordering matches how an agent would scan it.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so by listing the four metric families. What it omits is the shape of the response (field names, whether groups are returned as a list or map), so an agent knows what data exists but not how it is structured.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the parameter level. Baseline for a no-parameter tool applies; the description's enumeration of returned metrics is a bonus rather than a parameter concern.

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 names a specific resource (aggregate legislature figures) and enumerates exactly what it contains: total scrutins since the start of the legislature, share adopted, per-group headcounts, and number of députés. This clearly separates it from granular siblings such as obtenir_groupe, lister_groupes, or tendances_scrutins, since it is explicitly framed as a general overview.

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?

'À utiliser pour une vue générale de l'Assemblée' gives a clear usage context, and the enumerated contents implicitly delimit it from per-entity tools. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use it, so it is slightly below an explicit routing statement.

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