reunion_list_epci

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned fields (EPCI code, name, current code, type, department, region, year reference) and notes that it handles regroupings. For a list tool with no parameters, this is comprehensive and transparent.

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 three sentences long, front-loading the purpose and adding context without redundancy. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the function, providing regional background, and listing outputs with usage. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (list of fields) and gives geographic context about Réunion's EPCI structure. It is complete for a simple list tool with zero parameters.

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 has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter details. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds value by explaining the output, which is more than minimal.

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 EPCI' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes this tool from siblings by explaining its use for aggregating commune-level data at the inter-municipal level. The background about Réunion's five communautés d'agglomération adds specificity.

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 to aggregate commune-level data at the inter-municipal level', providing a clear use case. It does not mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like reunion_list_communes, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide.

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