reunion_search_road_accidents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool returns specific fields and is sorted most recent first, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication, data freshness, or other behavioral traits. The source citation is helpful.

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, front-loading the data source and time range, then listing output fields, sort order, and source. No wasted words, clear and well-structured.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully enumerates returned fields and specifies sorting and data source. Given the simple search functionality and 4 parameters, the description is complete enough to use the tool 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 description coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all parameters. The description adds context about output fields but does not add meaning beyond the schema for the parameters themselves. Baseline score applies.

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 road accident records from BAAC for La Réunion, covering 2016-2019, and lists returned fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like reunion_get_road_classification, which focus on other road data.

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 searching accident records, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative search tools or other road-related tools. No exclusions or alternative guidance provided.

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