historique_etablissement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description aligns with by stating it 'reconstitue' and 'lit'. The description adds behavioral context like data sources, cost (number of calls), and absence of cache, which goes beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 a bold version note, bulleted usage examples, and logical sections (purpose, cost, format). It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with main purpose.

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, output schema mentioned, and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description is quite complete. It explains the multi-source nature, typical use cases, cost, and no cache. It covers the essential context an AI agent needs to decide and invoke correctly.

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 sole parameter `num_finess`, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema (it only mentions 'Numéro FINESS exact (9 chiffres)'), which matches the schema description. No additional semantic value is provided.

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 explicitly states it reconstitutes the complete timeline of a healthcare establishment by cross-referencing multiple sources, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like etablissement_by_finess (current data) and reconcilier_finess_sirene (different operation). The verb 'reconstitue' and resource 'timeline' are specific.

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 three typical use cases (tracing history after merger, identifying exact closure date, understanding rebranding cascades) and mentions costs and no cache. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare alternatives, but the use cases imply appropriate context. Clear guidance overall.

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