reunion_search_plu_zones

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It details the return fields (commune INSEE, zone code, label, type, etc.) and data source (GPU via data.regionreunion.com). It implicitly indicates this is a read-only search, but does not explicitly guarantee no side effects or mention rate limits or error behavior. Overall, it provides good behavioral context.

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 four sentences, each serving a clear purpose: purpose, row structure, returned fields, and use cases. No redundant information, and key details are front-loaded. Perfectly concise for the complexity.

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 fully explains the return fields. Parameters are well-covered by both schema and description. The tool's role in urban planning research is clear. While pagination or empty results aren't mentioned, the limit parameter and search nature make these implicit. Overall, it covers all essential context.

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 descriptive parameter docs. The tool description adds significant value: examples for INSEE codes (e.g., '97411' Saint-Denis) and explanations of zone_type codes (U, AU, A, N). This enriches understanding beyond the schema, especially for domain-specific codes.

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 permanent PLU zoning database for La Réunion. It specifies the verb 'Search' and resource 'PLU zones', providing distinct context from sibling tools like reunion_search_catalog or reunion_query_dataset. The detailed explanation of each row (zone code, type, etc.) reinforces its unique purpose.

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 usage context, labeling the tool 'Essential for real-estate due diligence, project siting, urbanism research.' It implies when to use but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like other search tools. However, the specificity of PLU zones makes the use case obvious.

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