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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it supports multiple languages, slugs, and aliases (e.g., 'Fez finds Fès, Mogador finds Essaouira'), and clarifies that it returns codes. This enriches the agent's understanding of how the search behaves.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, gives concrete examples of alias handling, and ends with the actionable output (codes) and a pointer to get_commune. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose.

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 search tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the purpose, search behavior, and output routing. The parameters (limit, levels) are fully documented in the schema, and the output schema covers return structure. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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%, and the description's mention of 'French or Arabic, a slug, or another name' essentially mirrors the query parameter's schema description. It adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('régions, provinces and préfectures, cercles, communes and arrondissements of Morocco by name'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on name-based search, as opposed to location or code-based tools like commune_at or get_commune.

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?

While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, it provides clear context: this is a search-by-name tool that returns codes, and it instructs the agent to pass a commune's code to get_commune for population and parents. This gives practical routing guidance without formal when-not-to-use statements.

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