MANA — la vie locale française

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key limitation (no contact details, deliberately, because the RNA publishes none) and the data source. It does not cover output shape, pagination, rate limits, or freshness, so it is only moderately transparent.

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 composed of three purposeful sentences, with the scope and use case front-loaded and the contact warning clearly separated. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 read-style tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, source, and a key limitation. However, it omits any explanation of 'limite' and says nothing about the shape of the returned association records, leaving a moderate gap.

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?

The schema already documents q, commune, and departement, giving 75% coverage. The description reinforces the commune/department scoping and the q concept through the use-case example, but it does not clarify 'limite', which is an undocumented integer. The added value over the schema is modest.

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 identifies a specific resource (declared associations of a commune or department, with their social purpose, from the RNA) and a concrete use case ('quelle association fait X près de Y'). It lacks an explicit operative verb and does not name or differentiate sibling tools, so it stops short of 5.

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 an explicit use case: answering 'quelle association fait X près de Y', and asserts this is a question no other source answers. It also gives a clear exclusion: no contact information is returned. It does not name alternatives among siblings such as catalogue, chercher, commune, or missions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns the category/subcategory structure with counts and explains the closed-vocabulary behavior. It does not describe the exact output format, but for a zero-parameter catalogue tool this is sufficient.

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?

Two concise, information-dense sentences. The first front-loads the return value; the second provides usage context with a concrete warning. No filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter catalogue tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, how many categories, what accompanies them, and the strategic context relative to 'chercher'. Nothing essential 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 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?

The description states a specific verb 'Rend' and a precise resource: the 11 categories and their sub-categories with record counts. It also relates to the sibling 'chercher', which distinguishes its purpose as a listing/lookup tool.

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 directs the agent to call this tool BEFORE 'chercher' when uncertain about terminology, and warns that sub-categories are a closed vocabulary and guessing yields an empty list. This is clear when-to-use guidance and includes the consequence of misuse.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses important constraints: searching is by INSEE NAF code 'pas par mots-clés', the active-fiche count, acceptance of SIRET/SIREN identifiers, and the decisive limitation 'NE REND NI ADRESSE NI TÉLÉPHONE : la granularité s'arrête à la commune.'

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, trigger, matching behavior, accepted identifiers, and the key output limitation each earn their place in five short sentences. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool searches, how results are ranked, and the output granularity. It could be stronger by stating what fields are actually returned and how results should be consumed, but the core invocation context is present.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already explains all six parameters. The description adds high-level semantic context (NAF ranking, no address/phone output) but does not add parameter-by-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Cherche un lieu, un commerce... en France' and gives the canonical user intent 'trouve-moi X près de Y'. It is specific, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'associations' tool even though associations are listed in the same scope.

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 an explicit trigger: 'À appeler pour toute question du type « trouve-moi X près de Y »' and clarifies acceptable input modes (free text, SIRET/SIREN, categories). However, it does not state when not to use this tool or how it compares to the sibling tools 'associations', 'catalogue', 'commune', and 'missions'.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully warns that INSEE codes are not postal codes and gives an example. It does not describe the output format or how ambiguous commune names are handled, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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?

Three short, purposeful sentences. The main instruction is front-loaded, followed by ordering guidance and a clarifying warning—no wasted words.

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 one-parameter lookup tool, the description is largely complete: it explains the mapping and warns about a common confusion. Since there is no output schema, it could have specified the exact return field or format, but the essential information is present.

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 schema already documents the single parameter. The description confirms the parameter is a commune name but adds no deeper semantic detail beyond that.

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 the tool's purpose: finding the INSEE code of a commune from its name. It also distinguishes the result from a postal code with a concrete example, which removes 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?

The description explicitly says to call this tool first because sibling tools expect an INSEE code, never a name. It names the specific sibling tools and gives a clear when-to-use directive.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses that missions are relayed from an external public network and that applications happen at the organizer, not through this tool. Missing details include pagination behavior, response format, data freshness, and whether the listing is read-only in a technical sense.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the resource and source, the second adds the critical behavioral note. It contains no filler. It could be improved by adding an explicit action verb, but it is appropriately sized.

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 tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It explains where applications happen and that each mission has a source URL, but it does not clarify the three filter parameters, what the returned object looks like, or any limits on results. An agent would need to guess or inspect another source to use the tool reliably.

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 only 33% and the description adds no parameter meaning. 'limite' and 'departement' remain undocumented, and 'commune' only has a bare 'Code INSEE' hint in the schema. The description does not compensate for this gap at all, leaving an agent without enough information to correctly construct filter parameters.

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 identifies the resource: open volunteering missions relayed from the public API Engagement, and notes that applications happen externally. It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'search', but the meaning is unambiguous and the tool is distinguishable from siblings like associations or commune by its focus on missions.

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?

The description implies usage: consult these missions and do not submit applications here, because each mission carries the source URL. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as 'chercher' or 'catalogue', nor does it mention any prerequisite or exclusion context.

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