Unités administratives

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral details: return type (typed objects), included properties (INSEE code, feature_ref), data source (Géoplateforme), and how to reuse the feature_ref in other WFS operations. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose, followed by supplementary details (feature_ref usage, source). No redundant words. Slight improvement possible with bullet points, but currently effective and concise.

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 (2 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the necessary context: what the tool does, what the output contains, how to use results with sibling tools, and data source. No gaps identified.

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 clear descriptions for lon and lat. The description restates the parameters (longitude, latitude) but adds no new semantic meaning or formatting details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a list of administrative units covering a point, specifying the unit types. It is specific about the resource (administrative units) and the action (returns list). While it distinguishes from siblings by referencing related WFS tools, it does not explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools, hence a 4.

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 implies usage context (querying administrative units by point) and mentions that the feature_ref can be used with other tools, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or specify alternatives beyond the referenced WFS tools. Usage guidelines are implied but not explicit.

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