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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions that the ranking is 'précalculé' (precomputed), which is useful context, but it does not disclose read-only behavior, authentication requirements, result ordering, coverage limits, freshness, or what 'tête' means in terms of result size.

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 a single compact line with no wasted wording, and the ranking_slug examples are front-loaded. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though the content is under-specified rather than overly verbose.

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 four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough. It covers ranking_slug candidates only and leaves limit, min_population, departement_code, and the return format unexplained.

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. It provides candidate ranking_slug values (prix-immobilier, delinquance, etc.), which adds meaning for the required parameter. However, it does not explain the semantics of limit, min_population, or departement_code, leaving three of four parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 identifies the resource as a precomputed '/tops' ranking and indicates it returns the 'tête' (head) of that ranking, which gives a general sense of purpose. However, it does not explicitly state the operation in plain terms (e.g. 'returns the top entries') and does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as get_territory_scores or get_commune.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists ranking_slug values but does not explain when a caller should choose this tool over get_territory_scores or other sibling tools.

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