reunion_lookup_postal_codes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the database source ('official La Poste') and that it returns multiple results per commune, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authorization requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. The description is incomplete for transparency.

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 three sentences long, starting with the main purpose, then explaining a key detail (multiple codes per commune), and finally listing output fields and use case. It is well-structured, front-loaded, and contains no superfluous information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description effectively explains the return fields (INSEE code, commune name, postal code, line 5, delivery label). It also notes the geographical scope and the matching behavior (prefix match for commune, exact for others). The only minor gap is that it does not mention the default limit of 50, which is defined in the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a simple lookup tool.

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 has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates the output fields and use case but does not provide additional context for the parameters themselves. For example, it does not clarify that 'commune' is a prefix match or that 'postal_code' must be a 5-digit string starting with '974'.

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 identifies the tool as a lookup of official La Poste postal-code database for La Réunion communes and hamlets. It specifies the database source, geographical scope, and explains that multiple postal codes per commune are possible. This uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which are postal code lookups.

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 states the usage context: 'Use to map between INSEE codes, postal codes, and delivery labels for normalization.' However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like reunion_search_ban_addresses, which could also provide postal codes. The usage advice is implied but lacks exclusion criteria.

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