lire_attestation_pdf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that no network call occurs and enumerates the extracted fields, but says nothing about failure behavior on malformed/non-Urssaf PDFs or whether extraction is lossy.

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 (a purpose statement plus a return-field enumeration), front-loaded and free of padding. The list of fields earns its place because no output schema exists.

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?

The field enumeration compensates for the absent output schema, and the offline note covers a key behavioral trait. However, the single undocumented parameter's input format and error handling remain unaddressed, leaving gaps for an agent to fill.

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?

Only one parameter exists ('fichier') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not clarify whether it expects a file path, uploaded content, or base64. The 'sans appel réseau' note weakly implies a local file, but the input format remains ambiguous.

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 (extrait) and resource (données d'un PDF d'attestation de vigilance Urssaf), so an agent knows this is a parser, not a verifier. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling verifier/controler tools to draw the boundary, leaving that differentiation implicit.

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 parenthetical '(sans appel réseau)' hints that this is the offline parsing option versus the network-based verification siblings, but the description never says when to choose this over verifier_attestation or controler_attestation explicitly.

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