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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that – case-insensitive partial name matching, the precision of code INSEE, and the geometrie='contour' option. It says nothing about pagination semantics (curseur flow, the 50-result cap) or what an empty result looks like, so it does not exceed a solid baseline.

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?

Bold section headers and numbered examples make it well front-loaded and scannable, and the examples genuinely earn their space. The "Retourne" list, however, restates every returned field even though an output schema exists, making that block largely redundant.

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 13-parameter tool with full annotation and output-schema coverage, the description supplies enough context to call it correctly in the common cases. Remaining gaps are the unmentioned sort parameters and the mechanics of cursor-based paging, both of which an agent would have to infer from the schema alone.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns the bump by adding semantics the schema lacks – case-insensitive partial matching for nom, preference for code INSEE for exact identification, and the explicit combination of nom with code_departement. The sorting parameters (champ_tri, ordre_tri) and pagination cursor are still left entirely to 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 names a specific verb and resource ("Rechercher des communes françaises") and enumerates the five search axes (code INSEE, nom, département, région, GPS). It is easy to tell what the tool does, but it never contrasts itself with the geocoder siblings (infoparcelle_geocoder_search, infoparcelle_geocoder_coordinates), which is a real ambiguity given the "commune la plus proche de coordonnées GPS" use case.

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 "Cas d'usage" block gives five concrete scenarios and four worked examples, including a combined-filter case (nom + code_departement), which tells the agent when the tool is appropriate. It stops short of exclusions – nothing says when to prefer a geocoder sibling or what to do if no commune matches.

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