Servitudes d’utilité publique

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true, openWorldHint true. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: mentions return types (ponctuelles, linéaires, surfaciques), exposure of feature_ref, and the source. It does not cover performance or rate limits, but the annotations already handle safety. The description adds moderate 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?

The description is concise with three sentences including a parenthetical source. It efficiently conveys purpose, examples, and usage of feature_ref. Well-structured and front-loaded, though could be slightly more compact.

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?

Given the complexity of SUP concepts and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what a SUP is, gives examples, mentions return types, and references a sibling tool. It could include an example response but output schema likely covers that.

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% with 'lon' and 'lat' clearly described. The description confirms the parameters are for specifying a point but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it returns the list of servitudes d'utilité publique (SUP) for a given point. It explains the concept of SUP, lists examples, and distinguishes from sibling tools like geocode and gpf_wfs_get_feature_by_id. The verb 'Renvoie' and the resource 'assiettes de servitudes d'utilité publique' are specific.

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?

The description explicitly provides an alternative tool for retrieving the exact object via feature_ref: 'Pour récupérer exactement l'objet correspondant au feature_ref, utiliser gpf_wfs_get_feature_by_id.' This gives clear when-not-to-use and directs to a sibling tool. The context of being a point-of-interest query for SUP is clear.

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