technical_passages

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add behavioral value by stating that every flagged passage includes a justification ('précise pourquoi il est signalé') and by defining the detection criteria. However, it omits read-only status, sourcing/refresh behavior, and any rate or permission 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and qualifications, then the return behavior. It is dense with a breathless criteria list but every element is informative. Two sentences, no padding.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, classification criteria, and the shape of each result well enough to invoke. The main missing piece is the route_id semantics and any guidance about when this is preferable to broader route tools.

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 0% for the single route_id parameter, and the description never names or explains it. It implicitly scopes the result to a route ('au km près', 'passages ... de refuges.info') but adds no format, source, or semantics guidance for the required ID.

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?

States a specific verb (indique/indicates) and resource (technical passages at km granularity), and enumerates the exact criteria that qualify a passage as technical (T3+ CAS, via ferrata, scree, glaciers). This is far clearer than a tautology. It does not name or contrast any sibling tool, so it stops short of 5.

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 never says when to use this tool versus get_route, compute_stats, or any other route tool. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not conditions, or an alternative for the non-technical case. Usage must be inferred entirely from the purpose text.

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