Télécharger un acte PDF officiel DATA INPI

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the file is written into the project directory, that the PDF signature is verified, and that a local path is returned. However, it omits permissions/auth requirements, whether an existing file is overwritten, and any rate or size limits for a write-to-project operation.

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 compact two-clause sentence with no filler. The action and its data source are front-loaded, and the follow-up step is appended without bloat.

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 correctly explains the return value (chemin local). For a 2-parameter download tool with no annotations, the key facts an agent needs — source of the ID, destination behavior, signature check, and next step — are present, though auth and overwrite behavior are 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 coverage is 50%: output_directory has a schema description (default artifacts/inpi), act_id has none. The description adds real meaning for act_id by tying it to get_inpi_attachments, but says nothing about the output_directory parameter or act_id format/length constraints 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?

States a specific verb (télécharge) and resource (un acte ou des statuts publics au format PDF), plus its scope (dans le projet). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling download_inpi_balance_pdf by naming 'acte ou statuts' rather than a balance, though it never names the sibling directly.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: the act_id comes from get_inpi_attachments, an upstream sibling tool. It also tells the agent what to do afterwards (lecture avec un outil documentaire). No when-not guidance or exclusion of alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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