Coupures d'eau et eau non potable à La Réunion

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

Annotations already establish read-only/safe/idempotent, and the description adds genuine behavioral context well beyond them: how the secteurs_complets flag must be interpreted, the prohibition on inferring a street is unaffected, and the instruction to hand back the full-notice link. This is exactly the kind of failure-mode disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every later sentence carries an operational rule, but the long enumeration of communes and operators is dense and reads as a run-on, making the text heavier than strictly necessary for scanning.

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 one-parameter, annotation-covered read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, covered operators, empty-input behavior, sibling routing, and reporting constraints — an agent can call and report on it correctly without further information.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'lieu' parameter is fully documented there (commune, beach, quartier, cirque, summit, or lat/lon). The description only restates the empty-value behavior (all recent notices), so it adds little beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb+resource in both languages: water-cut and do-not-drink notices from Réunion's water distributors, listing exactly which operators/communes are covered (Dionéo, La Créole, CISE, runéo, Est communes). It explicitly distinguishes itself from qualite_eau (ARS analysis conformity) and gives concrete example questions it answers.

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?

Provides explicit usage cues: example phrasings, the rule that an empty 'lieu' returns all recent notices, and routing to qualite_eau for ARS conformity. It does not, however, differentiate from the closely related sibling restrictions_eau, leaving one obvious alternative unaddressed.

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