reunion_search_finess_establishments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the data source (Ministère de la Santé via data.regionreunion.com) and the fields returned, but does not mention behavioral traits like whether it is read-only, rate limits, or response pagination. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, fitting into three sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and enumerates key details without unnecessary verbosity, earning its place efficiently.

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?

The tool has four parameters and no output schema. The description covers the return fields, data source, and geographic restriction. However, it lacks information on result ordering, pagination, or error behavior. Given the tool's complexity, it is nearly complete but could be slightly more thorough.

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 parameter descriptions. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing examples for 'category_label' (e.g., 'Centre Hospitalier') and clarifying that 'commune' uses prefix match. This enhances an agent's understanding of how to use the parameters.

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 FINESS national repertory of health and social-care establishments, restricted to La Réunion,' listing specific establishment types and returned fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that search other datasets (e.g., health professionals, schools).

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 implicitly provides context by specifying the geographic scope and establishment types, making it clear when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for similar searches, such as reunion_search_health_professionals.

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