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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output is split by adults, minors, and sex, which is useful, but it does not disclose the default behavior when the optional 'commune' parameter is omitted, the response format (e.g., list vs. single object), or any limitations such as pagination or rate limits. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or other relevant traits. More context is needed for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately communicates the core purpose. It avoids redundancy, uses front-loaded information, and contains no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the basic purpose but lacks critical details about default behavior (e.g., whether all communes are returned when no filter is provided), the output structure beyond the breakdown, and any constraints. An agent would have to infer these aspects, making the description moderately complete but not fully self-sufficient.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameters (the single 'commune' parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely repeats the concept of commune filtering without offering syntax, format, or edge-case details. Thus, it neither enhances nor detracts from 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 clearly specifies the tool's function: retrieving official resident population data per commune, with a specific breakdown by adults, minors, and sex. It uses a precise verb ('Get') and resource ('official resident population by commune'), making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools that focus on other data types. There is no tautology or vagueness.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The usage is implied by the name and description—an agent seeking population data would naturally select this tool—but there is no direct guidance on alternatives or when not to use it. This qualifies as implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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