info_commune

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

No annotations provided, but the description implies a read-only query via 'Informations' and 'Recherche'. It mentions the data source ('Données officielles de la Geo API'). No contradictory statements. Could mention that it is non-destructive, but it is obvious.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states the purpose and output fields. Second sentence adds search methods and data source. Perfectly front-loaded 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is sufficient for a simple information retrieval tool. It covers what the tool returns, how to search, and data source. Could add that results may be empty if not found, but not required.

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% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by grouping search parameters (nom, codePostal, codeInsee) and mentioning the limite parameter, but does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it provides information about French communes (population, area, postal codes, department, region). It specifies three search methods (by name, postal code, INSEE code) and mentions official data source. No sibling tool covers commune info, so it is well-distinguished.

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 tells when to use: to get commune details. It does not explicitly exclude cases or mention alternatives, but the context is clear. The sibling tools list confirms it is the right tool for commune lookups.

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