verifier_droits_formation

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions estimates (balance, limits, etc.) but does not discuss safety (read-only vs write), authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The description lacks depth on what the tool does beyond its outputs.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the tool's purpose. It efficiently communicates key functions without redundancy. Could be slightly more structured but overall well-sized.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain return value format or structure. It lists estimated items but lacks detail on data types, error handling, or edge cases. For an 8-parameter tool, the description is insufficiently comprehensive.

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%, so description adds limited value beyond the already clear parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'solde' and 'plafonds' but does not map them to specific parameters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the semantic burden.

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?

Description clearly states the tool checks CPF rights and estimates balance, limits, mandatory contribution, and additional funding. It specifies the resource (CPF) and the action (vérifie, estime), making it distinct from sibling tools like verifier_convention_collective or verifier_droits_chomage_demission.

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 implicitly indicates usage for CPF rights checks but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor does it mention alternatives. While the sibling tools cover different domains, clear usage guidance is missing.

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