get_risks

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only mentions the data source (Géorisques BRGM) and a usage restriction. It does not specify that this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, caching behavior, or what happens if the commune has no data. The aggregate score range is given but tier meaning is unclear.

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 concise at 25 words but mixes French terms without translation, potentially hindering clarity. It front-loads key information but lacks clear structure (e.g., separate lines for different details). Not verbose but not optimally organized.

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?

Given the tool has one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on output format (beyond score and tier), error handling, how to interpret the tier, and what happens if the permit number is invalid. Agents may not reliably know how to use the response.

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 has one required parameter 'num_pa' (string) with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain what 'num_pa' represents (e.g., permit number or parcel identifier), leaving the agent to guess from sibling tools. No additional semantic context is provided.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves natural and technological risks (inondation, seisme, argile, ICPE) for the municipality of a permit, including an aggregate score (0-100) and tier. It identifies the specific resource and action, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_permit_details or get_mdb_score, which cover different data.

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 mentions 'Plan Pro+ uniquement' (only for Pro+ plan) as a constraint, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No instructions on prerequisites, when not to use, or comparison with sibling tools.

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