Qualité de l'air à La Réunion

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

Annotations already establish this as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: data source Atmo Réunion, 1–6 ATMO scale, today/tomorrow coverage, pollutants reported, and whole-island fallback when no place is supplied.

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 front-loaded with the core resource and scope, then examples, fallback behavior, and a short English summary. Despite covering several details, every element is useful and there is no filler.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what is returned (ATMO index and pollutant), temporal coverage, geographic scope, scale, and default behavior when no location is given.

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 the single lieu parameter is fully documented with free-text place types and coordinate format. The description only reinforces the empty-value behavior ('Sans lieu : toute l'île') and adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a specific resource and scope: ATMO air-quality index in Réunion by commune, for today and tomorrow, with the responsible pollutant. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as qualite_eau or meteo_actuelle because it names the air-quality domain, provider, scale, and temporal coverage.

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?

It gives concrete usage examples, including pollution at a named commune and whether outdoor sport is advisable, and explains that an empty location means the whole island. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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