reunion_list_priority_neighborhoods

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

With no annotations, the description does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation. It mentions returned fields and source but lacks disclosure of behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination behavior, or data freshness. The limit parameter implies pagination is handled, but no details are given.

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 concise with three sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second adds context about QPVs, and the third lists outputs and source. No unnecessary words, and key information is 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?

For a simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what is listed, return fields, source, and a filter option. Minor gaps include lack of pagination handling details and output format, but these are partially compensated by the parameter schema.

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%: both parameters (commune, limit) are described in the schema. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions. Per guidelines, this results in a baseline score of 3.

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 Quartiers Prioritaires (QPV) in La Réunion, with specific details on what QPVs are and their significance. It distinguishes this tool from sibling list tools (e.g., reunion_list_communes) by focusing on a distinct geographic and policy concept.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., reunion_list_communes or other list tools). The description explains the tool's purpose but does not specify context, prerequisites, or when to avoid it.

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