Natural & technological risks (Géorisques)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of explaining behavior. It states the source and high-level content, but it does not disclose what the output looks like, whether an address or coordinate pair is required, how missing/invalid inputs are handled, or any limitations of the report.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose, lists representative risk types, and adds the authoritative source. Every part contributes useful information with no filler.

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 and no annotations, the description is incomplete for reliable invocation. It does not state required inputs, response format, or whether both address and coordinates are accepted together. The risk list and source are helpful, but an agent still lacks key operational details.

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 only 33%, with lat and lon having no descriptions. The description's phrase 'address or point' hints at the alternative inputs, but it does not explain coordinate format, units, or the need to supply at least one of address or lat/lon. This does not sufficiently compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a specific action and resource: an 'Official risk report' covering concrete risk categories like flood, clay shrink-swell, radon, earthquake, and industrial sites. It clearly distinguishes the tool from real-estate and geocoding siblings by focusing on natural and technological risks.

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 establishes clear usage context: it is for a French address or geographic point and returns official risk information from Géorisques. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the scope and risk-topic focus make the intended use reasonably clear.

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