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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that results include counts over 7/30/90 day windows, but says nothing about no-match behavior or whether matching is exact or fuzzy.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence per language, with the resource and return payload first. The bilingual duplication is justified for a bilingual tool and no filler sentences are present.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and their time windows, which is the key missing piece for a search tool. Only edge-case behavior (no results, ambiguous multi-canton matches) is left unaddressed.

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 nom, canton and langue with examples and enum values. The description only restates 'by name or postcode' and adds nothing about matching behavior, partial matches, or how canton/langue interact with results.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find a Swiss municipality by name or postcode') and enumerates the returned fields (identifier, canton, application counts), which separates it from siblings like chercher_demandes. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, keeping it short of a 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?

Usage is only implied: the name/postcode lookup is clear, but there is no statement of when to prefer communes_proches or chercher_demandes, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance. An agent can infer the context but must reason about sibling choice itself.

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