reunion_iris_profile

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a combination of IRIS metadata and 2014 income indicators, which is transparent about the data source. It does not mention operational aspects like rate limits or read-only status, but the description is clear about what the tool does and returns.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence concisely states purpose and return data. Second sentence provides usage guidance. Extremely efficient and front-loaded.

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, so description must cover return data. It lists specific metadata and income indicators comprehensively. It does not mention return format or confirmation of single output, but given the single-parameter tool, it is sufficiently complete. The description provides all essential information for an agent to understand the tool's output.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a description for iris_code. The description adds value beyond the schema by noting that Réunion IRIS codes start with '974', which provides context for valid inputs. This is a useful addition that helps the agent understand the parameter.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns a detailed profile of one IRIS area, listing specific metadata and income indicators. The verb 'Returns' and specific resource 'profile of one IRIS' make it unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like reunion_get_income_poverty_by_iris by focusing on a single IRIS.

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?

Description tells when to use the tool (to get metadata and income data for a single IRIS) and provides explicit guidance: use reunion_list_iris to discover IRIS codes. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for multiple IRIS), but the single-profile nature implies it. Alternatives are not directly mentioned but the hint to discover codes is helpful.

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