irl_revision_loyer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the output ('Renvoie le nouveau loyer plafonné, la formule et les avertissements légaux') and the legal basis, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly say that the tool only calculates and does not modify the lease or generate a document, which is important given the sibling 'avenant_revision_irl'.

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 well organized: when to use, what it does, what to provide, and what it returns. Every sentence carries distinct information, with 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 calculation tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the inputs and the returned items: new capped rent, formula, and legal warnings. It is nearly complete, but an explicit note that it does not create the revision avenant would fully close the gap.

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 every parameter. The description repeated the core inputs ('loyer actuel et les deux indices IRL') but adds little semantic value beyond what the schema provides, and it does not clarify the role of the optional 'charges_actuelles' parameter.

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 clearly identifies the operation: 'Révision annuelle d'un loyer d'habitation indexée sur l'IRL' with a legal reference. It is specific enough to distinguish from most sibling tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from 'avenant_revision_irl', even though the return value suggests calculation rather than document generation.

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 opens with an explicit trigger condition: 'QUAND un bail arrive à sa date anniversaire et que le loyer peut être révisé.' It also states the required inputs: 'Fournir le loyer actuel et les deux indices IRL (INSEE).' However, it does not mention when to prefer a sibling tool such as avenant_revision_irl instead.

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