Vélos en libre-service à La Réunion

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

Adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing that data is live ('en direct') and limited to the Altervélo network in three southern communes, and it sketches the returned shape (bikes available, free docks, nearest stations). It does not discuss freshness/staleness or what an empty network response looks like, but annotations already cover safety and idempotency.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded and the example questions are genuinely illustrative. It is somewhat padded by full French/English duplication and three near-redundant example questions.

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 single optional-parameter read-only tool, the description covers scope, freshness, and roughly what is returned, which is enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps: no mention of network coverage limits (only three communes, no stations elsewhere on the island) as an explicit caveat for out-of-scope queries.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the 'lieu' semantics are already fully documented with matching examples. The description only echoes the concept via 'stations les plus proches d'un lieu' and adds nothing about matching behavior or fallback when no station matches.

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?

Names a specific resource (Altervélo self-service e-bikes) with a specific operation (live bikes and free docks per station, plus nearest stations to a place). The geographic scope and named communes distinguish it clearly from siblings like transports or fiche_terrain.

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 concrete user-question examples make the appropriate trigger obvious (checking availability at a station, finding a bike near a landmark, confirming a return dock). However, it never states when NOT to use it or points to the sibling 'transports' for general transit questions.

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