autocomplete_commune

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: the data source (geo.api.gouv.fr), alias mapping for parameters, and a recommendation for 'boostPopulation'. No contradictions.

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, with two short paragraphs. It front-loads the purpose and then provides essential usage details. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy.

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 has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, required parameters, aliases, data source, and a recommendation. It covers all necessary information for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds alias mapping (e.g., 'q' maps to 'nom') and a usage tip for 'boostPopulation'. This adds value 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 the tool searches French communes by name, postal code, or INSEE code, and explicitly mentions it is ideal for autocompletion. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_commune_by_code' which likely returns a single commune.

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', or 'code' is required, lists aliases, and recommends using 'boostPopulation' for ambiguous names. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, but the context of autocomplete is clear.

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