nc_get_digital_fragility_index

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only explains the score meaning but does not mention any side effects, read-only nature, data volume, or other behavioral traits. The 'get' verb implies a safe read, but this is not explicitly stated.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, and includes a meaningful clarification about the score's interpretation. No unnecessary words or filler.

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 simple tool with two optional filters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the meaning of the index, which is valuable for correct interpretation. The schema already indicates optionality by not marking parameters as required, so no further clarification is needed.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for both parameters ('Filter by commune name' and 'Filter by province') with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add param details. It does not explain how filters combine or any value formatting, but the baseline for high schema coverage is 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 the tool's function: retrieving a digital fragility index for communes in New Caledonia, with an explicit interpretation of the score. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which focus on completely unrelated domains.

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 implies when the tool would be used (when digital fragility data is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or exclusions. No sibling tools perform a similar function, so the context is inferred rather than stated.

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