get_routing_code_by_siret_and_code

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

The description only states 'Look up' which implies a read-only operation, but no explicit behavioral traits are disclosed (e.g., authentication needs, rate limits, side effects). With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides minimal transparency beyond the HTTP method hint.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose. It includes the HTTP path for context. No redundant words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (which explains return values) and the simple nature of a two-key lookup, the description is largely complete. It covers the input parameters and the action. Minor missing details like error conditions or uniqueness are acceptable for this complexity.

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% with clear descriptions for both 'siret' and 'identifiant_routage'. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., examples, constraints). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the action ('Look up') and the resource ('routing code') with specific identifiers (SIRET and code). It includes the HTTP method and path, adding specificity. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the name and description together uniquely identify the tool's purpose.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_routing_code or get_routing_code_by_id_instance. However, the description implies it is for a direct lookup by two specific keys, which provides some context. A score of 3 reflects the lack of exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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