Comparateur d'offres

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the computed dimensions and that a recommendation ('la meilleure') is returned, but it is silent on key behavioral assumptions such as which tax/contribution model is applied, how missing primes or RTT are treated, and whether the verdict is a single field or a breakdown.

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 that states the operation, the inputs it considers, and the output. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with two nested-object parameters, a required enum, 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits statut entirely, does not explain units or optional-field defaults, and only hints at the return value ('indique la meilleure').

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It maps loosely onto brutMensuel, primesAnnuelle and rttJours, but never mentions the required 'statut' enum (cadre/non-cadre), which drives the net calculation, and gives no units or currency for the numeric fields.

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 (compare) and resource (two job offers), and lists the comparison dimensions (net monthly, bonuses, RTT value) plus the outcome (identifies the better offer). This separates it from siblings like salaire_brut_en_net or comparatif_statuts, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 usage is implied by 'compare deux offres d'emploi' – an agent can infer this is for choosing between two job offers. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over comparatif_statuts or salaire_brut_en_net, and no stated prerequisites.

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