Bornes de recharge à La Réunion

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value beyond that by stating the data is operator-sourced live state (Freshmile, EZDrive, E.Leclerc), listing the per-point fields returned, and noting that an empty place means the whole island. It does not state data refresh cadence or coverage limits for 'en direct', which keeps it below 5.

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 resource statement and live-status claim are front-loaded, followed by example queries, which is a sound ordering. The French and English halves largely duplicate each other, but that is defensible for a bilingual public-data tool and the English summary is kept to one line.

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?

With only two fully documented optional parameters, no output schema, and complete annotations, the remaining burden is describing what comes back — which the description does by enumerating status, power, plugs, hours and network. It is essentially complete for an agent to call it correctly; only freshness/limits of the live data are unstated.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (lieu, rapide) already carry bilingual definitions and formats, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces `lieu` through town-name examples, but it also uses the word 'libre' in an example query while no availability filter parameter exists, which could briefly mislead an agent into looking for one.

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 names a concrete resource (bornes de recharge publiques pour voiture électrique à La Réunion) and a concrete payload (live per-charge-point status, power, plugs, hours, network), and quantifies scale (136 stations, 400+ points). No sibling tool covers EV charging (velos_libre_service is bikes, transports is transit), so the resource is unambiguously separable from the rest of the catalog.

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?

Three quoted example queries (« borne de recharge libre près de Saint-Gilles ? », « où recharger rapidement à Saint-Pierre ? », « bornes au Tampon ? ») give concrete, realistic usage contexts, including a fast-charging scenario. However there is no explicit when-not-to-use or pointer to any complementary tool, so routing guidance is implicit rather than complete.

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