french_school_map_school_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the tool's purpose. It does not explain what 'builds a context' returns, whether it makes external requests, what side effects exist (if any), or what preconditions apply. For a tool with no annotation safety net, this is a meaningful gap.

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 wasted words—appropriate for a tool with one parameter and no output schema. It sacrifices a small amount of space that could have been used for behavioral detail, but at this complexity level, the brevity is largely justified.

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 tool with one string parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally viable—it covers the tool's basic intent. However, without annotations or an output schema, it leaves unspecified what the generated context looks like, how it relates to the sibling 'sources' tools, and what an agent should expect as a return value.

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%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'commune or address query' loosely mirrors the schema's 'Commune, address, or local area' without adding new semantic depth. It neither confuses nor enriches the parameter's meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Build') and a resource ('source-oriented school comparison context'), and the qualifier 'source-oriented' hints at its distinctiveness from sibling tools like get_sources and search_schools. However, the phrase 'school comparison context' is somewhat abstract and doesn't fully convey what the output actually is.

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 phrase 'for a commune or address query' implies the tool's input scope, giving partial usage guidance. However, it never explicitly names when to prefer this over siblings like search_schools or get_sources, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or alternatives.

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