search_city

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-lookup profile is covered. The description adds that results include coordinates and that geo.api.gouv.fr backs it, which is useful context, but says nothing about result limits, ambiguity handling, or matching behavior.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the resource and lookup modes. Nothing wasted, though the parenthetical source reference is the least essential part.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. What is missing is routing guidance among the many search/autocomplete siblings and any note on result cardinality, which matters for a lookup tool in this crowded namespace.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'query' parameter, so the schema gives no help. The description partially compensates by stating the two accepted forms (nom or code postal), but gives no format, length, or accent/partial-match semantics.

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?

States a specific resource (French communes) and the two lookup keys (name or postal code), plus what comes back (coordinates) and the data source. It is distinguishable from siblings like geocode_address or place_autocomplete, though it never names them explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the overlapping siblings (geocode_address, autocomplete, place_autocomplete) that an agent would need to disambiguate against. The scope 'françaises' is the only implicit boundary.

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