local_risk_france_find_commune

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose the external dependency (geo.api.gouv.fr), which is a useful signal for availability/latency expectations. However, it doesn't note behavior on ambiguous or multi-match inputs (e.g., returns multiple candidates via limit), error handling for unknown codes, or rate-limiting concerns with the third-party service. The external URL mention earns it a 3, but richer behavior around matching/failures is undocumented.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. First sentence delivers the core action and contract; second provides usage timing. Every word earns its place, and the structure front-loads the most important information about resolution semantics.

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?

No output schema exists, so a description of what the resolution returns (e.g., a commune identifier/code that other tools consume) would add value. For a 2-parameter lookup tool, the description is nearly complete, but noting the return semantics would close the loop on its utility for chaining into sibling tools. It's adequate but not exceptional.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100% with clear inline examples for query and a description for limit. The description's phrase 'by name, INSEE code, or postal code' reinforces the query parameter's purpose, but the schema already captures this with examples. The limit parameter is self-explanatory with a clear constraint hint in the schema. This meets the baseline with marginal added value.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Resolve') with a clear resource (French commune) and enumerates the identifier types (name, INSEE code, postal code). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like local_risk_france_commune_brief by positioning it as the resolution step for other commune-specific queries. The phrase 'Useful before querying local risk sources' further anchors its unique role in the pipeline.

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?

Description says it's 'useful before querying local risk sources,' which conveys clear workflow context for when to invoke it. However, it doesn't name specific alternatives from the sibling list (e.g., local_risk_france_search_data_gouv or local_risk_france_search_risk_datasets also deal with searching) or explain when NOT to use this tool, such as when a search-like tool would be more appropriate. It stops short of a 4 because there's no explicit exclusion or alternative naming, though the positional guidance is genuinely useful.

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