Textes Les Plus Votes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine analytical context beyond that: it enumerates the returned fields (scrutin counts by type, adopted/rejected, last vote date) and warns that a high count mostly reflects amendment volume — a real interpretive caveat that prevents misreading results.

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 definition opens with the core ranking statement, then the usage note, then the return contents, then the caveat — a well-ordered, compact structure. The final caveat sentence earns its place, though the return-field enumeration is slightly list-like.

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 only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so (counts by scrutin type, adoption status, last vote date). Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has enough to call and interpret it correctly; only the absence of any response shape detail (e.g. ordering, empty-result behavior) holds it back.

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 both parameters ('limite', 'periode_jours') are fully documented in the schema with defaults and bounds. The description's phrase 'sur une période' loosely echoes periode_jours but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema; 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 resource ('Textes (dossiers législatifs)') and the ranking criterion ('ayant donné lieu au plus de scrutins sur une période'), which clearly separates it from siblings like scrutins_par_periode or tendances_scrutins that rank time periods or trends rather than texts. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Provides an explicit use case: 'À utiliser pour savoir quels textes ont occupé l'Assemblée récemment.' This gives an agent a concrete condition for selecting it. However, no when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. dossier_legislatif for a single text) is offered.

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