Informations d’urbanisme

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds significant transparency by detailing the types of objects returned (documents, zones, prescriptions), the presence of feature_ref for reusable WFS layers, and the source (Géoplateforme). It also provides concrete URL patterns for accessing documents, going well beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured with the main purpose first, followed by details on content, feature reuse, and URL models. It is moderately long but each sentence adds value. Slight redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient and front-loaded with essential information.

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 (two required params, no nested objects), the description is comprehensive. It explains the output types, the feature_ref mechanism for further queries, and provides URLs for document access. The presence of an output schema makes return value details unnecessary. All necessary context for correct invocation is present.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for lon and lat, including min/max ranges. The description mentions 'longitude' and 'latitude' but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline is 3, and since no additional parameter details are provided, the score remains at 3.

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 a list of urban planning objects for a given point, specifying documents, zones, prescriptions, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like adminexpress, cadastre, and altitude by focusing on urbanisme data from Géoportail de l'Urbanisme. The mention of PLU zoning as the primary information further clarifies the tool's specific purpose.

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 guidance by noting that results may include a feature_ref and explicitly directs users to gpf_wfs_get_feature_by_id for retrieving exact objects, which is a sibling tool. However, it does not comprehensively compare against all siblings or specify when not to use this tool. The URL templates also offer additional context for accessing documents, but overall usage boundaries are somewhat implicit.

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