reunion_list_canyons

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool returns a list with detailed fields (names, durations, flags) and implies a read-only listing operation. It does not disclose rate limits or permissions, but it is transparent about the data returned.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists output fields. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured with bullet points. However, it contains no fluff and earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (canyon name, durations, flag, etc.) and units. It covers purpose, output fields, and essential usage context, making it complete for a listing tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('secteur' and 'limit') with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'List practiced canyoning routes in La Réunion' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like reunion_list_hiking_circuits by focusing on canyoning routes, and no other sibling tool covers this niche.

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 mentions the tool is 'Essential for canyoning planning, safety briefings, professional guides,' which implies usage context but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given.

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