local_risk_france_get_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the list is curated (implying a selection bias) and that the tool is read-only ('List'), but it does not mention any limits, pagination, or whether the sources are static or dynamically fetched. Basic transparency is present, but more detail would be needed.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object. Every word contributes: 'curated' and 'high-value' add value, and the geographic scope is clear. No wasted text.

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?

This is a very simple tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description fully covers what the tool does in a way that is sufficient for an agent to select it and understand its basic behavior. For a list endpoint, no further details about return format are strictly necessary given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameter meanings. The baseline of 4 applies because with no parameters, there is nothing to clarify beyond the schema, which is already empty.

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 (List), the object (curated official and high-value sources), and the scope (for local risk France). It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools that retrieve datasets or specific links, making the purpose immediately apparent.

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 this tool is used to get an overview of curated sources, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as get_georisques_links or search_risk_datasets. There is no guidance on exclusions or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling list.

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