reunion_list_priority_education_schools

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 output fields but does not disclose behavioral traits such as being read-only, authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior. While the tool is likely read-only, this is not explicitly stated.

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 that efficiently conveys purpose and returned fields. It is front-loaded with the main action. While verbose due to listing fields (necessary without output schema), it is not excessively long and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 thoroughly explains what the tool returns (UAI, school name, type, EP label, etc.) and provides context about the EP program. Together with the schema, it gives a complete picture for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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 all three parameters (commune, ep_label, limit). The description adds some context (e.g., 'prefix match' for commune and ep_label) but no significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists schools in La Réunion belonging to the Education Prioritaire program (REP/REP+), with a specific list of returned fields (UAI, name, type, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like reunion_search_schools, which likely cover all schools without the EP filter.

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 explains the tool's context but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., reunion_search_schools) or when not to use it. The specificity is implied but not directly compared to siblings.

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