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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes that the scores are proprietary and lists categories, but says nothing about permissions, data coverage, return shape, score ranges, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 concise, but it is structured as a brand fragment rather than a front-loaded action statement. The brand name leads, while the tool's function and required input are absent.

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 data-retrieval tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description is materially incomplete. It identifies the dataset domain but does not explain the input, output, or how to interpret the proprietary scores.

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 schema has one required parameter, commune_code, with 0% description coverage. The description never mentions commune_code or explains that a commune identifier is required, so it adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema property name.

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 proprietary territorial scores and gives example categories (tranquillité, fiscalité, dynamisme immo), which conveys the general data domain. However, it lacks a clear action verb, does not explicitly say it retrieves scores for a commune, and does not distinguish itself from siblings such as get_commune or get_delinquance_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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_commune, get_delinquance_commune, or get_dvf_commune. The score categories imply a possible use case, but the agent is left to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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