commune_france_find_commune

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the underlying service (geo.api.gouv.fr) which gives some context about data source, but it does not mention behavior such as whether the query is fuzzy, case-insensitive, or how results are ordered. It doesn't disclose any limits (like the max limit parameter) or what happens when no commune is found. Moderate transparency for a read-only lookup tool.

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?

One concise sentence that captures the tool's purpose and data source without fluff. No wasted words, front-loads the action and resource, and includes the key identifiers. Appropriate length for a simple lookup 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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context on the expected response format (e.g., list of communes with properties) and how to interpret the 'limit' parameter in filtering results. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, a bit more context on the query behavior would improve completeness.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters beyond the generic 'query'. The 'limit' parameter is self-explanatory from its schema (default, min, max), but the description does not clarify what format 'query' should take (e.g., partial name, full name, with accents). It adds minimal value over the schema, which only lists the parameter names and types.

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 verb 'Resolve' and the resource 'French communes', and specifies the three supported query types (name, INSEE code, postal code). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_department_communes (which lists by department) and get_sources (which gets data sources), though it doesn't explicitly name them. Clear purpose with good differentiation.

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 the tool is for looking up communes by various identifiers, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_department_communes (when you have a department) or profile (when you have a specific commune). No exclusions or conditions are given. The context of 'resolve' suggests a search/find operation, but the when-not is absent.

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