local_risk_france_get_seismic_zoning

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that v1 endpoints are public (no auth required), which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention error handling, response format, or any side effects, so it's only partially transparent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the action and resource clearly, and the second provides a key detail (public access). No filler words or redundant information.

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 a simple read-only fetch with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the purpose and access requirements. It lacks explicit mention of return format or error behavior, but for such a simple tool, it is mostly complete. The public-access note adds context beyond the schema.

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 already fully describes the single parameter (code_insee) with type and pattern. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 official Géorisques v1 seismic zoning') and the specific resource (a commune INSEE code). It is unambiguous and distinguishes from siblings like get_radon or get_georisques_links by the specific data type.

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 context (need seismic zoning for a commune) but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives. The note about 'v1 endpoints are public without token' provides some guidance on access, but no exclusion criteria or comparative advice are given.

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