professionnel_by_rpps

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

The description extensively covers behavioral details beyond annotations: fallback to live API, multiple entries per PS, geo_precision values, source field, freshness parameter behavior. Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent, and description adds rich context. 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 detailed but concise, with each sentence contributing unique information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and structured to cover ID format, multiple sites, geo-precision, fallback, and freshness. Slightly verbose but acceptable given complexity.

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 sites, geo_precision, fallback, output schema present), the description covers all necessary aspects: how results are structured, how to interpret geo_precision, source, freshness, and fallback behavior. No gaps identified.

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 schema only describes include_freshness (50% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining the rpps_id format (11-12 digits, prefix '81' for newer IDs) and clarifying the behavior of include_freshness (adds data_freshness field). This adds significant meaning 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 the complete profile of a health professional by national RPPS ID, including ID format details, multiple sites, and geo-precision. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'rpps_search_by_name' and 'professionnels_in_radius' which focus on search or radius queries.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you have an RPPS ID and need the full profile. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool recommendations are given. The description focuses on behavior rather than guiding selection among siblings.

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