reunion_list_libraries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns library data and implies a read-only operation, but does not mention any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or data freshness. The description is adequate for a simple list tool but lacks depth.

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 paragraph with three sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and then details return fields and use cases. It is informative but slightly verbose; a more concise phrasing could improve clarity. Overall, it is well-structured and efficient.

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 absence of an output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields (library code, name, address, etc.) and source. It does not specify response format or types, but for a simple list tool with two optional parameters, the context is largely sufficient.

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 both parameters described. The description adds context about the return fields and use cases but does not provide additional semantic details for the parameters beyond what the schema already offers (e.g., commune as prefix match, limit range). Baseline 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 the tool lists public libraries in La Réunion, specifies the types of libraries (BMVR, médiathèques, etc.), and lists the returned fields. It also mentions use cases (cultural-equipment mapping, accessibility analysis), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling list tools.

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 provides context on what the tool returns and its source, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., reunion_list_museums for museums). No guidance on exclusions or prerequisites is given, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and return fields.

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