Actualités de La Réunion en direct : manifestations, blocages, routes, faits divers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: sources, a 5-minute refresh cadence, and the exact per-item fields returned (time, media, title, first sentence, named communes/places, link). It omits volume limits, ordering, and what happens when nothing matches.

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 example questions are front-loaded after the core statement, and each sentence carries operational information. The list of seven media outlets is somewhat bulky for the value it adds, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema and no required parameters, the description does the needed work by enumerating return fields and data sources, so an agent knows what to expect. Missing are result ordering, volume, and empty-result behavior.

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 each of lieu, sujet, and heures already documented including the default and range. The description restates the subject list and mentions 'quartier' and title keywords, but adds little beyond the schema's own wording.

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 states a specific resource (current local news about Réunion, aggregated from named island media plus prefecture releases) and the axes it is organized by (place and subject). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like evenements, cyclones, or vigilance_meteo, which serve different 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?

It gives concrete triggering questions (« il y a des blocages à Saint-Pierre ? », « route fermée ? ») that map directly onto use cases, so when-to-use is clear. It stops short of saying when to prefer a sibling (e.g. cyclones or transports) for the same question, so exclusions are absent.

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