mayotte_find_commune

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It only says it uses geo.api.gouv.fr, but doesn't disclose whether it's read-only, what it returns (e.g., a single commune object or array), or error behavior (e.g., not found). This is insufficient for a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One clear sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with the verb 'Find' and the resource.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (single param, no output schema), the description is mostly complete, but it lacks any mention of return value or potential ambiguity (e.g., multiple matches). It could be improved by stating what it returns.

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 100% for the single parameter 'query', which already describes its possible values. The description adds the explicit list of input types (name, INSEE, postal code) but this is redundant with the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: finding a Mayotte commune by name, INSEE code, or postal code. It uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('Mayotte commune'), and the mention of three lookup types distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_communes' which lists all communes.

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 description implies usage (when you need to look up a specific commune), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like mayotte_list_communes or mayotte_search_data_gouv. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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