commune_france_list_department_communes

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the geo.api.gouv.fr dependency but does not state whether the call is read-only, whether it returns all or paginated data, what the response shape is, or any external failure/rate-limit considerations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It states the action and target efficiently.

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 and the single parameter is fully documented, so the description is minimally adequate for calling the endpoint. However, it lacks output-shape information and any interaction warnings, which is a noticeable gap given that there are no annotations and no response schema.

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 fully documents department_code and includes an example. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but at 100% schema coverage the baseline 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 ('List') and a specific resource ('communes in a French department'), and names the external source. It is clear in what it does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling commune_france_find_commune, regardless of the fact that their scopes differ.

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 about when to choose this tool over commune_france_find_commune or the other siblings. The reader can infer the intended use from the description, but the only explicit guidance is what the tool does, not when to use it.

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