trinv-chercher-commune

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results include INSEE code and coordinates, warns that large result sets may not be listed, and notes that some communes have changed names or merged. This is useful behavioral context beyond a simple 'search' statement.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with the purpose, followed by usage advice, output details, and example questions. Every sentence adds valuable information, and the link to docs is a bonus.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It covers parameter semantics, result contents, edge cases (name changes/mergers), and the practicality of result limits, leaving little ambiguity for an agent.

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 schema provides zero description for the 'fragment' parameter, but the description thoroughly explains it as a series of consecutive letters from the commune name and gives concrete examples (BEURD → TREBEURDEN). This fully compensates for the missing schema description.

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 searches for French communes by a name fragment ('chercher des communes en France à partir d'un fragment de leur nom'). It is specific about the resource and method, but it does not explicitly mention the sibling tool trinv-chercher-parcelle, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 gives clear context and examples of when to use the tool (e.g., 'Quelle est la commune nommée BEURD ?'). It also provides an important usage warning about being specific to avoid huge result sets (SAINT → 4834 communes). However, it does not explicitly discuss exclusions or alternatives, staying a bit short of a 5.

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