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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that distance is between official centres and rounded to the kilometre, and that results include recent applications; it does not define what qualifies as 'recent' or describe result limits.

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 key purpose and scope are front-loaded in one clear sentence. The French translation doubles the length without adding new information for an English-reading agent, but the text remains free of tangential wording.

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 four-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately states what is returned: nearby municipalities plus their recent applications. It is slightly incomplete in not defining 'recent applications' or result format, but the essential calling 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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the radius concept and distance basis but adds no parameter syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 specific verb and resource: list municipalities within a radius of a municipality, including their recent applications. This clearly distinguishes the tool from a single-municipality lookup or a general application search by its radius-based scope, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the radius-and-recent-applications framing: use it when nearby municipalities and their recent applications are needed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance (e.g., versus trouver_commune or chercher_demandes).

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