resolve_historical_commune

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns a mutation path (fusions/renamings with dates), resolves to today's BFS number/name/LINDAS URI, and provides error/hint fields. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's behavior accurately.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, purpose elaboration, and Args/Returns sections. It is slightly verbose with phrases like 'core value of the reference layer' but each sentence contributes useful context. The front-loaded summary is strong, making it easy to scan.

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 relatively specialized historical resolution tool, the description covers the core use case, the output structure (resolves_to and mutation_path), error handling, and how to apply it for re-keying. Combined with the output schema, the description is complete and sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters (bfs_number, from_date, to_date) including examples and constraints. The description's Args section repeats this information without adding much new semantic value. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3; the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter meaning.

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 begins with a specific verb 'Map a historical BFS commune number onto today's number(s)', clearly identifying the resource (historical commune numbers) and the action (mapping to current numbers). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on mutation paths and re-keying old statistics, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 usage context: 'when old statistics are keyed on a BFS number that has since been merged or renamed'. It explains the use case for re-keying old figures. However, it doesn't explicitly list when not to use this tool or mention alternative sibling tools like search_historical_series or lookup_commune, so it lacks explicit exclusions/alternatives.

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