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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is clear. The description adds that it resolves the 'normally responsible' office, implying a deterministic mapping based on jurisdiction. No contradictions.

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 sentences: first states the core purpose, second lists acceptable inputs. No waste, front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 simple lookup tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose and input sufficiently. It could mention handling of invalid inputs (e.g., unknown codes), but overall it is adequate given the context signals.

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%; both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description repeats the input types already in the schema ('postal code, department number, city, or office name') without adding new semantic detail, so 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 resolves the competent Algerian consular office for a residence in France. It specifies the types of inputs accepted (postal code, department number, city, office name), distinguishing it from siblings like list_consular_offices or search_consular_procedures.

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 implies use when needing to find the responsible office for a residence, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_consular_offices (which might list all offices) or provide guidance on when not to use it. Lacks explicit when-not or alternatives.

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