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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: results are free-first then ascending by price, a median is included, and data comes from official sites. However, it does not say what happens when neither territory parameter is supplied (required parameters = 0), nor how lang affects results, leaving real behavioral gaps.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler; scope, ordering, median, and provenance each earn their place and the resource is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does describe the returned content (prices, ordering, median), which covers the main gap. It still omits handling of missing/conflicting territory parameters and the role of lang, so it is only partially complete for a three-parameter tool.

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 67%. The description clarifies that departement and land are alternative territory selectors, adding meaning beyond the schema, but the lang parameter is never mentioned in either the description or its schema entry, and mutual exclusivity is only implied.

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 names a specific resource (adult entry prices of castles) and a precise scope (a French département or a German Land), plus the ordering of results. An agent can distinguish this aggregation tool from get_chateau or search_chateaux purely from the text.

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 notes the tool is scoped to a département or a Land, which hints at how to call it, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus siblings like search_chateaux, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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