nc_get_nickel_fund_sites

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must carry behavioral disclosure. It merely states the retrieval action without addressing return format, pagination, rate limits, authorization, or any side effects. The absence of such details makes it insufficient for an agent to confidently predict behavior.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. The key differentiator ('Nickel Fund') is front-loaded, making it immediately scannable and efficient for an agent to parse.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the agent without details on response structure or additional constraints. While the tool appears simple, the lack of any hint about what fields are returned or how results are ordered is a minor gap for a retrieval tool. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Both parameters (limit, commune) are fully described in the schema with 'Max results' and 'Filter by commune'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond these, and since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 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 specifies a concrete action ('Get') and a precise resource ('sites managed by the Nickel Fund for environmental rehabilitation of former mining areas'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nc_get_dry_forest_sites or nc_get_mining_titles, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool retrieves.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of exclusions, and no context for when the Nickel Fund scope applies. The description simply states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage. No sibling comparisons or conditions are provided.

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