Fiche complète d'un dessin ou modèle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that data comes from the official INPI notice and enumerates the sections returned (including inscription history), which is useful context, but it says nothing about failure modes (invalid or unknown numero) or response size.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence identifying the resource and its source, followed by a compact field list with no filler. The enumeration is long but each item earns its place by telling the agent what data is available.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden by listing the record's sections, which it does well; the parameter is documented in-schema and safety is in annotations. Only error/invalid-identifier behavior is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already gives concrete numero formats (FR20140182, FR20140182-002, WODM071720-001), so the description adds nothing beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate for a single fully documented parameter.

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?

States a specific verb-resource pair ('Fiche d'un dessin ou modèle') and enumerates the record's scope (dépôt, pays, statut, Locarno, historique), so an agent can tell it apart from the sibling search tool rechercher_modeles. It stops short of explicitly naming the search-vs-fetch distinction, which keeps it from a 5.

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 only implied: the single required 'numero' parameter signals this is a follow-up lookup after obtaining an identifier, presumably from rechercher_modeles. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative.

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