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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses the substantive return content: programme presentation fields and the list of available lots, which is valuable given there is no output schema. It does not cover error behaviour such as an unknown program_id, but the core behaviour is well communicated.

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 with no waste: the first front-loads what is returned, the second front-loads when to use it. Every part earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies both the return content and the selection context. It is nearly complete, with only minor gaps around failure modes or authentication requirements.

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 100% and the single parameter is already documented in the schema as the programme identifier tied to a lot's program.id. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Renvoie') with a clearly scoped resource: the full presentation of a new-build property programme plus its available lots. It enumerates the returned fields (promoteur, localisation, description, livraison, prestations, points forts, dispositifs éligibles), making the tool distinguishable from sibling lot-level tools like get_lot.

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?

It gives an explicit usage condition: use when the buyer is interested in the residence as a whole rather than a specific lot. This effectively routes between programme-level and lot-level queries, though it does not name the alternative sibling tool (e.g. get_lot) directly.

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