Bornes de recharge à La Réunion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and idempotentHint, so the bar is lower; the description nonetheless adds real value by disclosing coverage numbers, the named operators (Freshmile, EZDrive, E.Leclerc) and the three-valued availability model (libre/occupé/hors service) sourced from each operator. It does not mention data refresh cadence or reliability of the operator feed, which would have earned a 5.

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?

Coverage and live-status capability are front-loaded in the first sentence, with examples in the second and a compact English summary last. It is somewhat long and partially duplicated across French and English, but no sentence is 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what each charge point returns (puissance, prises, horaires, réseau, état). Combined with the fully documented two-parameter schema and strong annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it; only result ordering/pagination and total-count behavior are unstated.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented, including the empty-string-means-whole-island convention and the 50 kW threshold for 'rapide'. The description only echoes this implicitly through its examples ("au Tampon", "recharger rapidement") and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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 names the resource precisely (public EV charging stations on Réunion Island) and the payload scope: 136 stations, 400+ charge points, plus per-point live status. It does not name a sibling, but none of the listed siblings (electricity, transports, velos_libre_service) overlap in domain, so the tool is easy to tell apart without opening the schema.

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?

Three quoted example queries ("borne de recharge libre près de Saint-Gilles ?", "où recharger rapidement à Saint-Pierre ?", "bornes au Tampon ?") make the intended use concrete, covering both location and speed filters. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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