compare_raison_sociale_finess_vs_rpps

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral context: it explains the return value is a discriminated union (LookupResult), details the three possible statuses (exact_match, divergent_after_normalization, rpps_absent), and describes the behavior when num_finess is not found (found: false with lookupStatus). No contradictions with 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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, utility, status explanations, and a note on return format. While it is somewhat lengthy, every sentence contributes necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the main action, making it efficient for quick scanning.

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 single parameter and the existence of an output schema (LookupResult), the description thoroughly explains all possible return scenarios and their meanings. It covers edge cases (not found, absent RPPS) and clarifies the discrimination of the output, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's behavior.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter (num_finess) with a description 'Numéro FINESS exact (9 chiffres).' The description reinforces this exact format but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, a 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 identifies the tool's purpose: comparing the raison sociale from FINESS DREES against that from RPPS/Annuaire Santé ANS for a given num_finess. It specifies the verb 'compare' and the two specific resources, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on this niche comparison.

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 provides context on when the tool is useful (e.g., detecting rebranding discrepancies after M&A) and notes a limitation (it does not determine who acquired whom). However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or mention alternatives among the sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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