list_consular_officesList all Algerian consular offices in France with their jurisdictions and official websites. Use when the user wants the network or needs to choose manually.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | No | Response language: Arabic, Tamazight (Kabyle), English, or French. | fr |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | ||
| offices | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it provides official websites, which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply. For a read-only tool, this is acceptable.
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 sentences: first states purpose and output, second gives usage context. Front-loaded, no redundancy. Every word earns its place.
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?
The tool has one optional parameter and an output schema. The description covers purpose and usage hint adequately. It does not discuss error conditions but is sufficient for a simple read-only list.
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% for the single 'language' parameter. The description does not mention the parameter, so it adds no value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is 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 clearly states the tool lists Algerian consular offices in France with jurisdictions and websites, distinguishing it from sibling tools by mentioning 'use when the user wants the network or needs to choose manually'. However, it could be more explicit in contrasting with similar tools like locate_consular_office.
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 provides a usage hint ('Use when the user wants the network or needs to choose manually') but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparison with siblings. This is adequate but not robust.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: retrieving procedure details, listing offices, locating an office by address, searching procedures, and showing a dossier. There is no overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_consular_procedure, list_consular_offices), making them predictable and easy to understand.
5 tools is well-scoped for the domain of Algerian consular services. Each tool serves a necessary function without being overly numerous or sparse.
The tool set covers the primary user workflow: finding offices, locating the correct office, searching for procedures, retrieving detailed procedure info, and generating a dossier. There are no obvious gaps for a read-only information service.