Informations cadastrales

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and read-only behavior, but the description adds critical context: search distance fixed at 10 meters, empty result if no object found, and deduplication by type. The source is also noted.

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 and front-loaded with the primary action, but the structure is a single dense paragraph. Minor improvement could be achieved with bullet points or shorter sentences.

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 tool's simplicity (2 read-only parameters), the description fully covers purpose, behavior, edge cases, and integration with sibling tools. Output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed.

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% with clear descriptions for lon and lat. The description reiterates them in context but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. 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 the tool returns cadastral objects near a given longitude/latitude, with details and a reusable feature_ref. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning alternative tools for specific use cases.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for cadastral data near a point) and how to reuse the feature_ref in other tools like gpf_wfs_get_features and gpf_wfs_get_feature_by_id. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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