local_risk_france_get_radon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies the tool as a fetch (read operation) and notes that v1 is public without token, which is helpful. However, it does not describe what the response contains, how errors are handled, or any potential rate limits or side effects, leaving the agent with incomplete transparency.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The note about public endpoints is concise and relevant. There is zero redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient.

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's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the essential information: what it fetches and the authentication requirement. It omits details about the response format or error behavior, but these are less critical for a straightforward fetch operation. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool without confusion.

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 input schema already fully describes the sole parameter (code_insee with pattern and description 'Commune INSEE code.'). The tool description repeats this but adds no additional meaning or nuances. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, as the description adds no extra value 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?

The description clearly states the action (fetch), the resource (official Géorisques v1 radon potential), and the specific scope (for a commune INSEE code). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other risk types or data sources, making the purpose immediately unambiguous.

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 implicitly signals when to use the tool (when radon potential for a commune is needed) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or mention exclusions. The note about v1 endpoints being public without token provides some context but does not address when to prefer this over sibling tools like get_seismic_zoning.

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