insee_search_geography

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Search' and 'Returns: List of GeoResult.' It does not disclose filter matching behavior, pagination, ordering, error conditions, or any limitations, leaving the agent to guess important execution details.

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 compact and front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are clearly structured without unnecessary prose, though it could have added a brief example or filter behavior note.

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 simple two-parameter search with an output schema, the description is minimally viable. It identifies the key parameter values but omits important contextual details like how name_filter behaves, whether the result list is bounded, and how this tool relates to the many geographic-adjacent siblings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning to geo_type by listing 'commune, departement, region,' which the schema does not. However, name_filter is only described as 'Optional name filter,' adding minimal semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Search INSEE geographic entities.' The Args line further defines the resource as commune, departement, or region, which separates it from sibling indicator/data tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate by name.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like insee_search_indicators or insee_get_data. The phrase 'Search INSEE geographic entities' only implies a lookup use case; it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios.

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