Pêche de loisir à La Réunion

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: provenance (prefect decrees), an instruction to cite the article, and an explicit caveat that the data may be incomplete because some rules are location-dependent. It does not describe response shape, which keeps it below a 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?

Dense but front-loaded: resource and source first, then coverage, then caveat, then example queries. The species list is repeated (once as covered closures, once inside the example questions), which is minor redundancy in an otherwise tight note.

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 2-optional-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the agent gets what it needs: data scope, provenance, citation duty, and a limitation on answer authority. The one gap is that the returned structure (list of rules by species/date? articles?) is only inferable from the enumerated categories.

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% — both `date` (AAAA-MM-JJ, empty = today) and `espece` (empty = all) are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the species list already present in the schema and says nothing about the date semantics, so 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?

Names a very specific resource (recreational fishing rules in Réunion, sourced from prefect decrees) and enumerates exactly what it covers: daily closures for langouste/bichiques/capucin nain/anguille marbrée, bichique hours, minimum sizes, quotas, banned species, lagoons. No sibling tool (maree, qualite_eau, sentiers_randonnee, etc.) overlaps, so an agent can route here without ambiguity.

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 concrete triggering questions ('la langouste est fermée ?', 'jusqu'à quand les bichiques ?') that map directly to realistic agent intents. It also flags a scope limit — other rules depend on location and only the decree text is authoritative — but never names a sibling to use instead, so it stops just short of explicit when-not guidance.

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