outremer_list_communes

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

With no annotations, the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by naming the upstream API (geo.api.gouv.fr) and explicitly listing the valid department codes (971, 972, 973, 974, 976). However, it doesn't mention side effects, authentication, or error behavior. Given the simple read-only nature of listing communes, this is adequate but not excessive, scoring a 3.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediate supporting details. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 straightforward list operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: the action, the target (communes), the scope (overseas department), and valid inputs. While it doesn't detail return format or error handling, the simplicity of the tool makes this acceptable, though a mention of output structure could push it to 5.

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 input schema already documents the single parameter 'department_code' with a description ('Overseas department code.') and an enum of valid values. The tool description repeats the enum values, adding no new semantic depth. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no extra parameter insight, keeping it at the baseline of 3.

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 'List communes for an overseas department' with a specific verb and resource. It also identifies the external API (geo.api.gouv.fr) and lists supported department codes. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, the resource (communes) is distinct and the supported codes add specificity.

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 when to use the tool—when listing communes for an overseas department—but doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions. The context of supporting specific department codes is clear, but there's no 'use this instead of X' guidance. This is merely implied usage, fitting a score of 3.

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