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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains that the tool searches and returns commune details (code INSEE, postal code, population, etc.), and notes that department names are normalized. However, it does not discuss pagination, rate limits, or data freshness, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 well-structured with numbered usage modes and an example, making it easy to scan. Each sentence adds value, but the length is slightly long for a tool with many parameters; some details could be tightened.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description provides useful context but lacks details on pagination (the limit parameter is not explained) and the exact return structure (e.g., whether it returns a list or single object). The mention of 'Plan minimum : Discovery' is ambiguous.

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 has 0% description coverage on parameters, so description must compensate. It explains key parameters like query, department_code, population_min, population_max, and mentions postal_code and region_code. However, some parameters (e.g., limit, details) are not fully detailed, and INSEE code is referenced as a query option but is not in 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 clearly states it searches and lists French communes, with two distinct modes: finding a specific commune via query parameters (name, postal code, INSEE code) and filtering communes by department/region with optional population range. This specificity differentiates it from sibling tools like search_address or search_company.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use each mode with concrete examples (e.g., 'communes du Pas-de-Calais de plus de 100 000 habitants') and recommends preferring department_code over department_name. Provides clear guidance on parameter selection, though it does not explicitly exclude sibling tools.

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