Vélos en libre-service à La Réunion

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the data is 'en direct' (live), covers a specific network in the south of Réunion, and reports bikes-to-take and free-dock counts per station.

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 scope and live-data nature are front-loaded, and the bilingual format is appropriate for a Réunion-focused tool. The three example questions add useful clarity but make the description slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is needed: live availability, per-station bikes/free-dock data, nearest-station lookup, and geographic coverage. Annotations handle the safety profile, so nothing critical is missing.

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 already fully documented in the schema (station, place, town, empty = whole network). The description reinforces this with example place names, but adds no new syntax or behavioral detail 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 names the exact resource (Altervélo e-bike share), the geographic scope (Saint-Pierre, Saint-Louis, L'Étang-Salé), and the specific data returned (bikes to take and free docks per station). No sibling tool covers live bike-share availability, and an agent can immediately tell this apart from broader tools like transports.

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?

Three concrete example questions make clear when the tool is appropriate: checking bikes at a station, finding nearby bikes, and confirming return-dock availability. It does not name an alternative tool or explicitly exclude overlapping use, but no close sibling exists, so the contextual guidance is strong.

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