compare_raison_sociale_finess_vs_rpps

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing return values: it explains the three possible statuses (exact_match, divergent_after_normalization, rpps_absent) and the not_found case. It also clarifies that the tool does not interpret M&A events, which is important behavioral context not covered by readOnlyHint or other 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 (utility, statut explanation, format) and is informative without being overly verbose. It could slightly reduce redundancy but each sentence adds value.

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 tool's complexity (multiple return statuses, not_found handling, no business interpretation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains all necessary aspects for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (num_finess, 9 digits). The description reiterates the parameter's use ('pour un même num_finess') but does not add new semantic information beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 tool's purpose: comparing the raison sociale from FINESS DREES with that from RPPS/Annuaire Santé ANS for a given num_finess. It uses a specific verb ('compare') and resource description, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'reconcilier_finess_sirene' which focuses on SIRENE matching.

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 explains the tool's intent (primitive without business interpretation) and provides context on when it's useful (e.g., detecting rebrandings). It does not explicitly state when to avoid its use or directly name alternatives, but the utility explanation guides appropriate usage.

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