verifier_attestation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it enumerates normalized statuses (valide, perimee, inconnue, incomplete, erreur), explains that inconnue may indicate possible fraud, and lists the fields returned for a valid attestation. It does not mention side effects, authentication, or rate limits, but it substantially describes observable behavior.

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 front-loaded with the action, followed by a compact status list and a final domain note. Every part contributes useful information, with only minor density in the status enumeration.

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?

Because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain return behavior, and it does by listing both statuses and valid-attestation fields. It is nearly complete for invocation, missing only explicit sibling differentiation and operational constraints such as auth or rate limits.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it specifies that `code` is a 15-character security code and explains `domaine` with URSSAF as default for employers and ISU for artisans, merchants, and independent workers. This is strong coverage, though the exact code format remains unspecified.

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 states a specific verb and resource: verifying a 15-character security code with Urssaf. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling verifier_attestations (plural) or controler_attestation.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the several sibling verification tools. The only orientation provided is about the `domaine` parameter, which is parameter semantics rather than tool-selection guidance.

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