commune_france_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states what kind of output profile is built, but it does not explain whether any resources are fetched, whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, or what the returned structure contains.

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, single-sentence, and front-loaded with the main action and resource. It avoids filler; the only minor weakness is that 'source-oriented' and 'geo identity' are not elaborated enough to make the description self-sufficient.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the main informational source and it communicates the tool's result at a high level. It is adequate for a single-parameter profile builder, but an agent is still left guessing about return format, behavior, and exact input semantics.

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 documents code_insee as a required 5-digit string, but the description provides zero parameter-level context. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description was expected to compensate and at least link the INSEE code to the commune profile concept; it does not.

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 action ('Build') and a clear resource ('commune profile'), and further specifies that the profile is source-oriented, includes geo identity, and suggests public-data queries. This gives enough semantic distinction from siblings like get_sources or find_commune, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when a commune profile with geo identity and public-data query suggestions is needed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance, and no warning against using sibling source-oriented tools for simpler lookups.

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