fr_get_company_agreement

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining the tool returns metadata only and why, plus mentions the source_url. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, both essential. The first sentence states the core purpose and a key constraint. The second explains the rationale and return content. No extraneous words; information is front-loaded.

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 simple tool (one parameter, good schema coverage, annotations present, output schema exists), the description covers the return value (metadata fields plus source_url) and the limitation regarding full text. It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand usage.

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 description for agreement_id is already detailed, mentioning its format and origin. The tool description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool consults a company-level agreement by its ACCOTEXT id and returns metadata only. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it targets ACCO agreements and explains why full text is not provided (Legifrance distributes as .docx).

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 indicates when to use the tool (to get agreement metadata) and notes that the full text is a .docx attachment, implying it should not be used to retrieve full text. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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