Offres d'emploi public à La Réunion

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds behavior they do not: results sorted most-recent-first, deduplication of a post published under several references into one row with nombre_offres and references, and a freshness caveat that the offer page is authoritative because a post may be filled before its deadline. It also instructs the agent to surface each offer's link.

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 purpose and source are front-loaded, and almost every clause carries operative information (fields, dedup, link rule, caveat, out-of-scope referral). It is one dense run-on block though, mixing return-shape detail, output formatting instructions and query examples without structure, which costs a point.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully by enumerating every returned field plus the aggregated nombre_offres/references structure. Combined with the freshness caveat and the private-sector exclusion, an agent has everything needed to call it and report results correctly.

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%, so both parameters (lieu, mot_cle) are already documented in the schema, including examples and the empty-value semantics. The description only hints at them indirectly through example queries and does not add syntax or matching rules beyond what the schema states. Baseline 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?

Names a specific resource with scope: public-sector job offers in La Réunion (974), sourced from Choisir le service public, including which employers are covered (État, communes, Département, Région, hôpitaux, université). It also enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. No sibling tool covers employment, so the differentiation is implicit but unmistakable.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use examples ('offres d'emploi à la mairie de Saint-Paul ?', 'le CHU recrute des infirmiers ?') and an explicit exclusion with the correct alternative: private-sector offers are not included, refer to France Travail, without fabricating. That is a clear positive condition, negative condition and named alternative.

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