autocomplete_commune

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the data source (geo.api.gouv.fr) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits or return format. It is consistent with annotations but adds no significant behavioral context beyond what is obvious.

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 concise sentences: function, use case, and source. Each sentence provides essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary action and efficiently covers key aspects.

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 and rich annotations/schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, use case, and source. However, it lacks an indication of the output structure (e.g., returns list with commune names and codes), which would be helpful given no output schema. Still, the tool is usable as-is.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions the three search criteria (nom, code postal, code INSEE) but does not add meaning beyond the schema descriptions, which already detail exact formats and defaults (e.g., limit default 10, boostPopulation recommended for ambiguous names).

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 it searches French communes by name, postal code, or INSEE code, and specifies it's ideal for autocomplete. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling 'get_commune_by_code', which is for exact 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 explicitly says 'Idéal pour autocomplétion' (ideal for autocomplete), providing a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'get_commune_by_code', though the context implies it for partial input searches.

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