Profil social des candidats municipaux

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool is clearly a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context: scale (~546k candidates, ~10k communes), classes, and available actions (summary, composition, parite, etc.), which enriches the agent's understanding beyond the 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?

The description is extremely concise: three short sentences covering purpose, scale, classes, and actions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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 complexity (8 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides high-level context but omits parameter details and usage conditions. It sufficiently covers the tool's domain and actions but leaves parameter semantics incomplete.

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 must compensate. However, it only lists action values indirectly via the 'Actions' list, but does not explain any other parameters (sexe, classe, search, tetes_only, commune_code, etc.). This leaves most parameters undocumented, failing to add meaning 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 'Requête les données DLP (composition sociale des candidats municipaux 2020)' with specific verb and resource. It lists distinct classes and actions, and the title and context distinguish it from sibling query tools (e.g., query_elections, query_admin), making its purpose unmistakable.

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 for querying social profile data of municipal candidates by listing available actions, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other query tools) or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are stated.

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