reunion_search_local_elected_officials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone carries full burden. It mentions the source (Ministère de l'Intérieur RNE) and indicates read-only search behavior, but lacks details on rate limits or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose, then lists officials and fields, then cites the source. No redundant 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 annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, return fields, and data source. It is complete enough for an agent to decide to use, though it could provide more on read-only nature or typical usage hints.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing return fields and providing examples for function_label, which helps the agent understand query impact beyond schema definitions.

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 searches the registry of local elected officials for La Réunion, listing specific types of officials and return fields, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like reunion_search_admin_directory.

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 specifies what types of officials can be searched and the available filters, but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, though siblings imply different scopes.

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