nc_get_public_facilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only says 'Get' which implies a read operation, but it does not specify whether the tool returns a list, supports pagination, or requires any authentication. It also does not describe any response format or potential errors, leaving the agent with little information about the tool's 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, efficient sentence that leads with the verb and object, immediately conveying the tool's core purpose. There is no fluff or redundant information. It earns a high score for being concise and front-loaded.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully equip an agent to decide when to invoke it. It lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and any mention of the search alternative (nc_search_facilities). Given the tool has three optional parameters and a specific geographic scope, the description should do more to contextualize its role among the many sibling tools.

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 provides complete descriptions for all three parameters: type (enum with detailed values), limit (max results), and commune (filter by commune). The description adds the geographic context 'Greater Nouméa' which is not in the schema, and gives examples of facility types that align with the enum. However, since the schema already documents the parameters well, the added value is modest, but the geographic scope nudges it to a 4.

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 action (Get), the resource (public facilities), and the geographic scope (Greater Nouméa), and gives examples of categories (schools, sports, health, transport) that align with the enum in the schema. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling nc_search_facilities, which could be a general search alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nc_search_facilities or other facility-related tools. It does not mention any exclusions or preferred contexts. This forces the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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