avis_echeance

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it states the document is generated via a specific POST endpoint, that the service uses a local dossier with no access to the Synergieloc fleet, and that a window envelope format is used. This clarifies side-effect scope and constraints without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key constraints and a business instruction. The final upsell sentence adds operational context but is slightly tangential to tool invocation; overall it remains efficient and scannable.

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?

For a 15-parameter tool with no output schema, the description effectively covers what it generates, when to use it, the API endpoint, and important scope/access constraints. It does not describe post-output handling or error behavior, but those are not essential given the fully documented schema and annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 15 parameters, including formats and semantics. The description adds only indirect param context (e.g., 'Enveloppe à fenêtre (destinataire droite)' for locataire_adresse), which is helpful but not enough to exceed the baseline of 3.

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 ('Génère') and resource ('AVIS D'ÉCHÉANCE / appel de loyer'), with an explicit condition of when it applies ('QUAND le bailleur doit APPELER le loyer du mois (avant paiement)'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like quittance_loyer (after payment) and relance_impaye (late payment).

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 'QUAND' and 'avant paiement' phrasing gives an explicit trigger for use, and the note about being sold to AI agents with local client folders clarifies the operational context. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide a 'when not to use' list, so it stops short of a 5.

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