Coupures d'eau et eau non potable à La Réunion

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the secteurs_complets completeness flag and the constraint never to conclude a street is unaffected — a real caveat about interpreting results. It would rate higher if it said more about recency/window or result volume, but with no output schema this is solid added 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 what the tool returns and when to use it; the long commune enumeration is verbose but serves coverage understanding. The bilingual trailing sentence and detailed caution block are justified, though the distributor list could be tightened.

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 one optional parameter, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: it names the fields surfaced (heures, rues concernées, secteurs_complets) and instructs how to report partial data. Only recency windows and result limits are unaddressed.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented with examples (commune, plage, quartier, cirque, coordinates). The description's 'Sans lieu : tous les avis récents' largely restates the schema's 'Vide = tour de l'île', so 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?

States a specific resource (water-cut and do-not-drink notices from Réunion distributors) with a concrete verb-like framing and enumerates the communes/distributors covered, so an agent can tell it apart from generic news or weather siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like qualite_eau or restrictions_eau, which keeps it at 4 rather than 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?

Provides concrete example queries ('coupure d'eau à Saint-Denis ?', 'quand revient l'eau ?') and states the no-location default ('tous les avis récents'), plus explicit handling rules when secteurs_complets is false. It stops short of naming the alternative tools (qualite_eau, restrictions_eau) that an agent might confuse it with.

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