local_risk_france_search_risk_datasets

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of explaining the tool's behavior. It clearly states the tool searches data.gouv.fr and combines search terms, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose expected behavior around edge cases, such as what happens when no place is provided, how results might be ordered, or if there are any rate limits or authentication requirements. The description is functionally informative but lacks deeper behavioral disclosure.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's primary function. It avoids unnecessary details and is appropriately brief for a tool with a well-defined schema. The structure is clean and directly addresses the core functionality without extraneous information, though it could potentially add a note about its relationship to sibling tools without becoming too long.

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 description is complete for a simple search tool with a well-defined schema and no output schema. It knows its target API and general behavior. However, it lacks clarity on the connection to the sibling tool 'local_risk_france_search_data_gouv', and doesn't explain the value proposition of this specific tool over its sibling, which would be valuable context for an agent choosing between them.

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 offers 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, essentially restating the combination logic for 'topic' and 'place'. Since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, and the description doesn't need to repeat the information.

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 ('Search') with a clear resource ('data.gouv.fr for local-risk datasets') and indicates a two-part query construction ('combining a risk topic and optional commune/departement context'). This provides a solid understanding of the main function. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'local_risk_france_search_data_gouv', which could be a closely related search tool, creating some ambiguity about the exact distinction.

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 its usage context by mentioning the combination of topic and place, suggesting it's for when both dimensions are relevant. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings like 'local_risk_france_search_data_gouv' or 'local_risk_france_get_sources'. There's no mention of when not to use this tool or what alternative tools might be more appropriate in different scenarios.

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