verifier_droits_chomage_demission

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and details the analysis: motif, legitimacy/retraining determination, amount and duration estimation, and France Travail steps. It lacks mention of limitations or indicative nature, but covers main behaviors well.

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 three sentences, each adding value: purpose, analysis details, and outputs. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core function.

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 no output schema, the description mentions estimating amount/duration and detailing steps, which indicates return content. Lacks explicit output format or error conditions, but is sufficient for a tool with three required parameters.

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% but the description adds meaning: explains that motif_demission determines legitimacy, and anciennete_mois and salaire_brut_mensuel are used for estimation. This context goes beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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: verifying unemployment eligibility (ARE) after a resignation. It specifies the verb 'vérifie' and the resource 'éligibilité au chômage après une démission', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'simuler_chomage' and 'verifier_eligibilite_rsa'.

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 implies usage for post-resignation scenarios but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or exclude other separation types. No mention of when not to use, nor references to sibling tools like 'simuler_chomage'.

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