reunion_search_associations

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses return fields (RNA ID, SIRET, title, etc.), sorting (most recent first), and data source. It provides comprehensive behavioral context for a read-only search tool.

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 informative and well-structured, though slightly dense. It front-loads purpose and returns, but could be slightly more concise without losing detail.

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 all return fields, sorting, and source. For a search tool with four optional parameters, it covers necessary context for the agent to use it effectively.

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%, and the description largely restates parameter descriptions from the schema without adding new information. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description adds marginal value.

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 searches the RNA for La Réunion, specifies the type of associations (1901 law), lists return fields, and includes source details. It uniquely identifies its purpose among many sibling search 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 implies usage for finding association data in La Réunion, but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. However, the context is clear enough 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.