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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that — short response by default, the detail flag expanding déchèterie and carburant specifics, the non_inclus reporting mechanism, and that it aggregates media-reported blockages. It does not discuss failure modes such as an unknown or ambiguous commune name, which matters for a broad open-world aggregator.

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 key claim ('en un appel') and the usage examples are front-loaded, and the long domain enumeration does earn its space by telling the agent exactly what coverage to expect from an aggregator. The middle clause is a dense run-on list, which costs some readability, but there is no filler sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: default is a short answer, detail expands it, and gaps surface in non_inclus. The only meaningful omission is behaviour when the commune cannot be resolved, which is a notable risk for an open-world, place-name-driven 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns above it: 'Un lieu (plage, quartier, sommet) est rapporté à sa commune' clarifies that non-commune place names are acceptable and how they resolve, and 'detail pour ce qu'accepte chaque déchèterie et le prix de chaque carburant' specifies concretely what the boolean unlocks beyond the schema's generic 'la réponse complète'.

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?

Opens with a specific verb-and-resource framing ('Tout ce qui compte aujourd'hui dans une commune... en un appel') and then enumerates the exact domains covered (météo, vigilance, mer, qualité de l'air, électricité, routes, eau, événements, pharmacie de garde). It is unmistakably the aggregator among the siblings, contrasting with the single-domain tools like meteo_actuelle or coupures_eau.

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?

Gives concrete invocation contexts via the quoted example queries (« quoi de neuf à Saint-Paul aujourd'hui ? », « ma journée au Tampon ») and explains the routing contract: anything missing is listed in non_inclus with the tool to call. It does not explicitly say when to skip this tool and go straight to a sibling, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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