reunion_list_swimming_pools

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 data source and returned fields, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. While likely harmless, the description lacks some transparency.

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, front-loading the core purpose and immediately providing essential context. No unnecessary words or repetitions.

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 lists all returned fields and mentions use cases. It covers the data source, filtering, and granularity. However, it does not mention pagination behavior (though limit param is in schema) or differentiate from similar list tools. Still, it is mostly complete for a list operation.

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% with clear descriptions for each parameter (commune, type, limit). The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the 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 swimming-pool basins in La Réunion, explains the data source (subset of national sport-equipment registry), granularity (per basin), and lists returned fields. It also mentions use cases, making the purpose very specific and distinguishable from siblings.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (for pool-related data in Réunion), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, 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.