french_school_map_search_schools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it searches a directory, with no mention of pagination, limit behavior, what fields are returned, or whether it is read-only. The safety profile is implied (search is usually read-only) but not made explicit.

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, complete sentence that conveys the tool's core purpose immediately. It is concise with zero fluff, and the primary action and target are front-loaded. No unnecessary details are included.

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 search tool with no output schema, no annotations, and four parameters, the description is inadequate. It does not specify the shape of results, how filters combine, or the meaning of a successful search. An agent is left guessing about the response format and how to interpret results, which is especially critical given the absence of a return 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?

Schema coverage is 75% (type, query, and commune have descriptions; limit only has default/min/max). The description itself adds no parameter-level detail. Since most parameters are documented in the schema, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not increase or decrease clarity.

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 the verb 'Search' and a specific resource ('the national education directory') with a clear source (data.education.gouv.fr). It distinguishes this from siblings like get_sources or search_education_datasets, which target different resources. However, it does not explicitly mention that it returns school records, relying on the tool name for that inference.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention that this is the tool for searching schools specifically, nor does it describe any conditions that would favor search_education_datasets or school_context. The description offers no exclusions or alternatives.

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