Télécharger des comptes annuels PDF officiels DATA INPI

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses a refusal rule (comptes confidentiels), an integrity check (vérifie la signature PDF), and the output form (local path for a document tool). It omits permissions/auth requirements and failure modes, keeping it short of 5.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and source of input, then the behavioral caveats and the return. No filler, though the run-on construction packs four ideas into one clause chain.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the essential lifecycle: input origin, refusal condition, verification, and returned artifact for downstream reading. What is missing (auth scope, error/rate-limit behavior) is secondary for a simple two-parameter download.

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% and output_directory is already documented in the schema with its default. The description compensates partially by explaining where balance_id originates, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond that. 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 names a specific verb (télécharge) and resource (bilan public / comptes annuels PDF), and explicitly ties the input to its source: the identifiant bilans returned by get_inpi_attachments. An agent can distinguish it from download_inpi_act_pdf (acts) and get_inpi_structured_balance (structured data) without opening a schema.

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?

It states the prerequisite clearly (balance_id comes from get_inpi_attachments) and the downstream step (chemin local pour lecture avec un outil documentaire). However it does not contrast against the obvious siblings download_inpi_act_pdf or get_inpi_structured_balance, so the agent must infer when the PDF route is preferred over structured data.

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