Router les contrôles réglementaires sectoriels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two valuable traits: the call is free and it explicitly disclaims that checks have been executed ('Le routage ne prétend jamais que les contrôles ont déjà été exécutés'), preventing a serious misinterpretation. It says nothing about auth, rate limits, or what is returned, so gaps remain.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the important scope disclaimer. The mid-sentence enumeration of a dozen domains is long but each item earns its place by telling the agent what coverage to expect.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should ideally say what a successful routing returns (a list of registers/regulators to query). It conveys scope and the non-execution caveat but leaves the response shape to inference, leaving a modest completeness gap for a single-parameter tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that routing is driven by the SIREN (and mentions a NAF code that is not actually a schema parameter, a minor inconsistency with the single 'siren' field), but adds no format, validation, or lookup semantics beyond that.

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 and resource: it selects the relevant official registers/regulators from SIREN and NAF code, enumerating the covered domains (asset freezes, finance, CNAPS, ICPE, CNIL, etc.). The purpose is unmistakable, though it never contrasts itself with any sibling tool, which no other sibling obviously duplicates.

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 signals cost ('gratuitement') and the routing-only nature, which implicitly tells the agent when to call it (upstream of actual checks). But it never states when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer, so usage is only implied rather than explicit.

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