Chateaupedia

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses that returned hours/prices are only valid with their verification date, identifies official sources (Mérimée, Wikidata) and the reservation.url pass-through behavior. It is transparent about data freshness, which is the main behavioral risk for this kind of reference tool.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, freshness/citation caveat, and ticket-link instruction. No filler or repetition, and the most important information (what the tool returns) is front-loaded.

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 low-complexity get-by-slug tool with two params and no output schema, this is complete: it explains the scope of the return, the conditions under which returned hours/prices can be trusted, and the correct handling of reservation.url. Error/not-found behavior is not described, but that is a minor gap for a retrieval tool of this simplicity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3: slug and lang are already described, including lang's enum/default and slug's origin from search_chateaux. The description adds no input-parameter semantics; reservation.url is an output field, not an invocation parameter.

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 states a precise action and object: 'Renvoie tout ce que nous savons d'un château' and enumerates the content categories (résumé factuel, horaires, tarifs, accessibilité, équipements, coordonnées, sources officielles, date de vérification). This makes it unmistakably a get-full-record tool and separates it from search/list siblings.

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 gives strong post-invocation guidance (cite URL/date when reusing schedules/prices; pass reservation.url through as-is), but it never explicitly says when to choose this over search_chateaux or list_events/itineraires. The intended workflow is implied by 'tout ce que nous savons' and by schema's slug provenance from search_chateaux, but not stated in the description.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden for behavioral context. It usefully discloses the data source, the nightly update cycle, and the fact that each event carries a page URL. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only or describe any side effects, pagination, or response-level behavior beyond the URL detail.

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?

The description is short and to the point, with two sentences that each add value: one defines the content and source, the other highlights the included URL. The structure is efficient, though the first sentence is a noun phrase rather than an action-oriented statement, and there is minor overlap with the title.

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 simple listing tool with two optional parameters, the description provides enough to understand the general output and freshness, but it stops short of describing the actual return structure beyond the URL, or how language and limit parameters affect the response. Given no output schema or annotations, a bit more return-value detail would make it complete.

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 50%: 'limite' has a description, 'lang' has only an enum. The description adds no parameter-level context, such as how 'lang' affects results or how 'limite' interacts with the default. Since the tool description does not compensate for the half-covered schema, parameter semantics are underspecified.

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 tool's purpose is clear: it provides upcoming events at castles, specifically guided tours, night events, and exceptional openings, sourced from the Ministry of Culture's agenda. The domain is distinct from siblings like get_chateau and list_itineraires, though the description itself lacks an explicit verb and relies on the tool name and title for part of the meaning.

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 implies usage for upcoming events by emphasizing 'à venir' and the nightly refresh, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over list_itineraires, get_chateau, or search_chateaux. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative routing hints.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: routes are ordered locally and distances are measured rather than estimated. However, it does not mention language behavior, response format, source of data, or limitations, leaving some behavioral transparency gaps.

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 with no filler. The first sentence defines the resource and its key behavior; the second provides a concrete usage example. Every sentence earns its place and the main point is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple with only one optional parameter, so a short description is reasonable, and the core purpose and usage context are present. Yet there is no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not indicate what the returned data looks like or how the language parameter affects results. These omissions are not fatal for a simple list tool but leave moderate gaps.

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?

The schema contains a single optional 'lang' parameter with an enum of 'fr', 'en', 'de', which conveys possible values. However, schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention 'lang' at all, nor does it clarify default language behavior or how the parameter affects results. With low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate and did not.

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 identifies the resource as multi-day itineraries ('deux ou trois jours') and adds a defining characteristic: the order of stops is computed stepwise and distances are measured, not estimated. It is distinguishable from sibling tools such as get_chateau, list_evenements, and search_chateaux, although it does not use an explicit imperative verb like 'list'.

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 provides a clear use case: answering queries like 'que voir en trois jours dans la Loire'. This signals when to call the tool. It does not explicitly state exclusions or compare alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it over the sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the dataset scope, the output contents (fiche URL + Markdown citation link), the license obligation, and the available filters. This is substantially informative, though it omits error, rate-limit, or result-ordering behavior.

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 tight sentences: the first states what the tool does, the second states what results contain and why the agent must reuse the provided links. No redundant words, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 an 8-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains result contents and the citation requirement, and the schema fully documents every parameter. Minor omissions like sorting or empty-result behavior do not prevent correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add some framing by listing queryable field types and filter categories, but it does not clarify parameters like lang or limite beyond what the schema already says.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Cherche parmi 12 989 châteaux...'), names the countries and searchable fields, and lists the available filters. This clearly distinguishes search_chateaux from siblings like get_chateau and list_evenements.

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 makes clear this tool is for searching châteaux by name, commune, department, region, or country, so the primary use case is implied. However, it never explicitly contrasts it with get_chateau (e.g., 'for a single known building, use get_chateau') or gives when-not-to-use guidance.

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