mayotte_get_vigilance

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure; 'Return' and 'public page excerpt' imply a read-only public fetch, but the description does not explicitly state that no data is modified, whether network failures are possible, or how the excerpt is truncated. It is minimally transparent but lacks deeper context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every phrase ('official', 'Mayotte Météo-France', 'vigilance URL', 'short public page excerpt') adds value.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only retrieval tool, the description is reasonably complete: it states what is returned and implicitly that the source is public. An output schema is absent, but the return values (URL and excerpt) are described adequately. A little more context around failure behavior would be needed for a 5.

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 only parameter, include_excerpt, with a clear description and default. The tool description adds little parameter-specific detail beyond the notion of a 'short public page excerpt,' so the schema handles the semantics and the description earns the baseline 3.

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 ('Return') and identifies the exact resource: the official Mayotte Météo-France vigilance URL plus a short public excerpt. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mayotte_get_sources or mayotte_search_datasets, which target different resources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and does not mention any exclusions or preconditions. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and the reference to Mayotte/Météo-France.

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