local_risk_france_get_georisques_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does convey that the output consists of official, public links and that the tool is appropriate for authoritative risk review, implying a safe, read-only operation. However, it does not disclose behavior such as whether network calls are made, how links are returned, or what happens with invalid INSEE codes.

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 short sentences communicate the action, target, scope, and intended use without wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and ends with a value statement.

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: one required parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description explains what is built and why it is useful, which is largely sufficient. A small gap is the lack of explicit return format or error behavior, but the low complexity makes this non-critical.

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 schema fully documents the code_insee parameter, including its pattern and example values. The description only reinforces that the parameter is a single commune INSEE code, adding no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('official Géorisques and related public links') for a clearly scoped input ('one commune INSEE code'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch sources, search datasets, or retrieve risk values, as the focus here is specifically on generating official links.

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 clear context: the tool is for building official links for a single commune INSEE code and is suitable for authoritative risk review. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is clear enough given the sibling tool names and the explicit single-commune scope.

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