audit_submission_checklist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Crash-test' hints at a read-only diagnostic, but the description does not say whether anything is persisted, what a verdict looks like, or how missing items are reported — and with no output schema that gap is material.

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 compact sentence with the purpose and legal basis front-loaded and no filler. The 'Crash-test administratif' framing is informal but functional and does not cost clarity.

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 five-parameter audit tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is thin: it never indicates what the check returns (pass/fail list, missing documents, compliance verdict) or whether the boolean inputs are evaluated against the guarantee amount.

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 all five parameters are individually documented, including their link to Article 27. The description adds only the decree reference (Articles 27 & 28), which loosely frames the booleans but gives no extra semantics 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 concrete verb and resource: verifying the list of mandatory documents ('vérifier la liste des pièces obligatoires') to avoid automatic elimination at bid opening, with the governing decree cited. It is clearly distinguishable from most siblings, though it does not explicitly separate itself from check_regulatory_compliance, which sounds adjacent.

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 phrase 'pour éviter l'élimination d'office à l'ouverture des plis' implies the moment of use (pre-submission sanity check) but never states it as a condition, and names no alternatives or exclusions versus check_regulatory_compliance or submit_portal_recourse.

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