Sites publics de La Réunion sans réponse

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful dynamics beyond that: daily rechecking, entries disappear when the site responds again, and it explicitly never explains why a site is down. That is meaningful operational context.

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 purpose and then adds examples and behavioral notes. It is somewhat long and bilingual, but the English translation is useful and no sentence is clearly wasted.

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?

Given no output schema and only one optional parameter, the description is complete enough: it explains what each entry contains (since when, last error, missing rundata.re content) and how list membership changes. It also warns that the tool does not explain root causes.

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 the single optional “quoi” parameter is already well documented as a site, commune, or theme filter. The description provides example query terms but does not add syntax or filtering semantics beyond the schema, so 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?

The description states a precise resource and scope: Réunion Island public websites that are currently not responding, with daily rechecks. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like actualites, coupures_eau, or volcan_seismes because it reports site availability failures and the resulting missing rundata.re content.

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 example queries (“le site de l'OVPF marche ?”, “pourquoi pas de bulletin du volcan ?”, “le site de Sudéau ne répond plus ?”) that implicitly tell the agent when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the usage context is strong.

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