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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world lookup, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that homonyms are disambiguated by département and that historical local names are indexed, but says nothing about pagination or result limits despite the cursor/limit params.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the primary instruction (find the INSEE code first) leads. Telegraphic style leaves a little ambiguity but 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with zero parameter documentation and no pagination guidance for a search tool, the definition is only marginally complete for correct invocation.

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 0% across all three parameters. The description hints that the query concerns commune names, but never explains the query string semantics, the limit/cursor pagination pair, or how the INSEE code is returned. It fails to compensate for the empty 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 states a specific verb+resource: finding the INSEE commune code. It implicitly distinguishes itself from callejear_search_streets by framing itself as the prerequisite step, though it never names the sibling directly.

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?

'Trouver le code INSEE avant de chercher une rue' gives clear sequencing guidance — call this before a street search. It stops short of naming the alternative tool or stating when not to use it.

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