candidature_locataire

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral and workflow context: the output is HTML with a separate PDF endpoint, the address-block recipient is the agency, and the document should be filed locally after receipt. This goes beyond what annotations provide and does not contradict them.

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 four short, front-loaded sentence fragments, and each earns its place: trigger, resource/format, recipient, and post-receipt action. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 17-parameter document generator with no output schema, the description covers the essential decision and outcome facts: when to use it, what it produces (HTML, with PDF available via a specific endpoint), who the recipient is, and what to do with the result. It does not explicitly state the response shape, but it names the HTML format and the 100% schema coverage makes enumerating parameters unnecessary.

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 the input schema already documents all 17 parameters in detail. The description's only parameter-related hint is the address-block recipient, which reinforces 'agence_adresse' but adds no new semantics. Per the baseline rule, this warrants a 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 trigger ('QUAND un candidat constitue son dossier pour un logement') and a specific resource ('Dossier de CANDIDATURE locataire'), which clearly identifies this as the tenant-application document tool. It also adds output format and recipient context that distinguish it from sibling document tools. However, it never states the operative verb explicitly (e.g., 'génère' or 'crée'), so the action is implied rather than named.

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 description explicitly defines when to use the tool: when a candidate is assembling a rental application file. It also provides practical routing guidance ('Destinataire fenêtre = agence') and a post-receipt action ('À classer dans le dossier local après réception'). It does not list exclusions or name alternative tools, but none of the siblings appears to be a close competitor, so the trigger is sufficient.

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