geo_search_departements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses fuzzy-search behavior, optional name filtering, and that limit defaults to cover all mainland and overseas departments. It does not mention read-only status or edge cases, but the key behaviors are transparent.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose stated first, followed by a compact Args section. Every sentence adds value with no filler.

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?

For a simple two-parameter search tool with no required parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, and default behavior. The agent has enough to call the tool correctly without missing guidance.

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%, so the description fully compensates. It explains nom as a name filter and limit as a row cap, adding meaning beyond the raw schema types and defaults.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List all departments or fuzzy-search them by name.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like geo_get_departement, which targets a single department by code, and geo_search_communes, which targets communes.

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 provides clear context for when to use it: when listing all departments or fuzzy-search by name, and explains nom set vs omitted. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools like geo_get_departement.

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