autocomplete_commune

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds context about the data source (geo.api.gouv.fr), the requirement to provide at least one of three parameters, and accepted aliases. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two concise paragraphs: first covers purpose and source, second outlines requirements and aliases. Every sentence adds value, though it is slightly wordy. Good front-loading.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, and source, but does not describe the output format or fields returned. Given no output schema, this is a gap for a tool with 5 parameters and no output documentation.

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% with descriptions. The description adds crucial information: that at least one of the main parameters is required, lists aliases, and recommends 'boostPopulation' for ambiguous names—all 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 clearly states 'Recherche de communes françaises par nom, code postal ou code INSEE. Idéal pour autocomplétion.' It uses a specific verb (recherche/autocomplete) and resource (communes), and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on other entities like établissements and entreprises.

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 specifies that at least one of 'nom', 'codePostal', 'code' is required, and provides alias mappings. It implicitly addresses usage for commune autocompletion but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives among siblings.

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