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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only says 'value discarded.' It doesn't state whether the tool returns a boolean, throws on invalid input, performs network access, or has side effects. That is a significant gap for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 text is extremely short and front-loads the topic, but the meaning is ambiguous: 'shape' is informal and 'value discarded' is unclear. Brevity is achieved at the cost of precision.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the missing return contract, input format, and parameter mapping leave the agent without enough context to call the tool confidently.

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?

Although the schema has descriptions for all params, none is mapped to the INSEE code in the tool description. The generic parameter descriptions (e.g., 'query', 'ref', 'json') do not make clear which parameter should receive the commune code, so the description does not help an agent construct a correct call.

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 domain object, 'INSEE commune code', but stops at the noun phrase 'shape' without an explicit verb such as 'validate', 'check', or 'verify'. A reader must infer from the tool name and sibling names that this is a format validator, which is weaker than a stated purpose.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool over the many sibling shape/format validators, nor for what input format is expected. The phrase 'value discarded' hints at a side effect but does not explain how the caller should invoke the tool.

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