reunion_get_income_poverty_by_iris

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists all returned indicators and notes the reference year (2014), which adds context. It does not mention data freshness or error behavior, but for a data retrieval tool this is adequate.

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 highly concise: two sentences with no redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the alternative tool is mentioned succinctly. Every sentence 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?

No output schema exists, but the description lists all return fields. It covers the reference year, IRIS definition, and cross-dataset alternative. While it doesn't discuss pagination or error cases, it is sufficient for a straightforward data retrieval tool with a limit parameter.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description explains the concept of IRIS, which adds meaning to the 'iris' and 'commune' parameters, but does not elaborate on the 'limit' parameter beyond what is in the schema. This provides marginal added value.

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 it provides INSEE Filosofi income, poverty, and standard-of-living indicators at IRIS level for La Réunion, specifying the reference year and defining IRIS. It distinguishes itself from the sibling reunion_iris_profile by mentioning a cross-dataset alternative.

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 explicitly says 'Use reunion_iris_profile (commune module) for a cross-dataset IRIS view,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. an alternative, which is excellent for decision-making.

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