historique_etablissement

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, open world), the description discloses internal behavior: it reads 'periodesEtablissement' for each candidate SIRET, notes version V0.7.0 with expanded candidates, and provides cost details (1 RPC FINESS + 1 SELECT rpps + N appels DINUM + N appels INSEE). 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 front-loaded with the main purpose and well-structured with typical uses, output format, and cost. However, it is somewhat verbose, especially with version and cost details, but every sentence provides 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 complexity of the tool (cross-referencing multiple data sources), the description covers purpose, typical uses, output format, and cost. An output schema exists, so detailed return structure is not required, but the description gives a good overview. Missing error handling or prerequisites, but acceptable.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter 'num_finess' with a clear description. The tool description does not add further semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline.

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: 'Reconstitue la timeline complète d'un établissement de santé (ouvertures, fermetures, changements de NAF/enseigne)'. It uses a specific verb ('Reconstitue') and resource ('timeline'), and differentiates from siblings by focusing on historical timeline reconstruction.

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 explicit typical use cases (e.g., after merger, identifying exact closure date, understanding rebranding cascades) which guide when to use. It does not explicitly name alternatives but the context implies this is for historical tracking vs. current status tools.

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