etablissement_by_finess

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, openWorld hints. The description adds significant behavioral context: data freshness (1-2 month delay), email always null, raison_sociale abbreviation, cache behavior, and return format (discriminated union). No contradiction 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 moderately long but well-structured, with each sentence providing distinct useful information. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds caveats. Could be slightly more concise, but no wasted sentences.

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, the description covers purpose, limitations, cross-references, and return format. It does not detail all fields of the output, but the output schema exists and is referenced. Adequate for effective agent use.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description adds value by explaining include_freshness is opt-in to avoid payload bloat, and notes cache behavior. This enriches understanding beyond the schema.

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 it retrieves full details of a health establishment by FINESS number, listing specific fields. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like etablissements_finess_by_categorie or etablissement_by_siret, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly advises when to use this tool (for general FINESS lookup) and when to cross-check with ARS/Service Public for emerging structures. Recommends using SIREN/SIRET tools for full legal name, and notes data delay and null email. This provides clear guidance on alternatives.

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