Résumé du jour pour une commune de La Réunion

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description adds substantial context: it explains the breadth of aggregation, that weather is both measured now and forecast for the day, that media-reported road blockages are included, that waste centres are specifically Ouest, and that gaps are surfaced via non_inclus. It also discloses the place-to-commune normalization behavior.

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 front-loaded with the main promise and then lists the covered domains compactly before giving examples and the English summary. It is long and dense, but the length is mostly justified by the unusually broad aggregation scope.

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 complex multi-domain aggregator, the description covers scope, input normalization, and the non_inclus limitation that points to alternative tools. Since there is no output schema, it could say more about the response structure, but it is otherwise complete enough for correct selection and invocation.

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 already documented as a commune or place in Réunion. The description adds useful semantic detail beyond the schema by clarifying that a beach, neighbourhood, or summit is mapped back to its commune, which helps the agent choose valid inputs.

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 aggregator purpose: 'Tout ce qui compte aujourd'hui dans une commune de La Réunion ... en un appel', then enumerates the domains covered. This clearly distinguishes it from the many single-domain sibling tools by positioning it as a one-call daily summary and by noting that missing items are reported in non_inclus with the tool to call.

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 usage examples such as « quoi de neuf à Saint-Paul aujourd'hui ? » and « ma journée au Tampon », and explains that missing content is listed in non_inclus with the appropriate tool to call. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the intended overview use case is clear.

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