fuzzy_search_addresses

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses technical behavior (pg_trgm, case/accent/typo insensitivity), cost (1 quota unit), and geo scope respect. However, it omits whether the operation is read-only (though implied), what the response contains, or pagination details. The disclosed info is useful but incomplete.

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 concise (few sentences) with a clear front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, technical details, use case, cost, example. No fluff or repetition.

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 lack of output schema, the description covers tool purpose, behavior, use case, cost, and geo-scoping. It lacks a description of the return format or error behavior, which would be helpful. Overall, it is mostly complete for a search tool.

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 67% (2/3 params have descriptions). The description adds value beyond schema for q by clarifying fuzzy, insensitive, typo-tolerant behavior and giving examples. For dep_code, schema description is sufficient; description adds nothing. For limit, neither schema nor description provides explanation, so a gap remains.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Recherche fuzzy par texte libre sur les adresses'. It defines the scope (street, city, lieudit) and gives a concrete use case (finding permits via approximate address). The examples further clarify intent, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_permits.

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 clear context by stating 'Idéal pour trouver un permis quand on connaît l'adresse approximative mais pas le code postal ou commune INSEE précis'. This tells when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention when not to or name alternative siblings. The guidance is helpful but lacks exclusions.

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