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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is free to add operational detail — a hard cap of 20 neighbourhoods and the fields returned (reference price, rents, yields, link to the neighbourhood page). That is useful context beyond the annotations, though sorting order and any empty-result behaviour are unstated.

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?

One dense sentence that leads with the resource and ranking key, then adds the cap and payload fields. Nothing is wasted, though a second short sentence for the strategy values or the city format would improve scannability without bloat.

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 read-only three-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing pieces: the ranking basis, the 20-item limit, and the returned fields. The remaining gaps — city identifier format and sort direction — are minor but real.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load; it explains what 'strategie' changes about the ranking and that 'limite' caps results at 20. However, the 'ville' parameter's expected format (city name vs. code) is never clarified, and the ordering the rank follows is only implied by 'classés'.

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 verb and resource — ranking neighbourhoods of a city by the IMMONAI IMS Market Score for a given strategy — and implies a list result capped at 20 items, which separates it from the detail-oriented sibling 'quartier'. It does not name the siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the multi-neighbourhood ranking call, and the strategy parameter determines which ranking applies. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over 'quartier' or 'methode_score', nor any prerequisite or exclusion.

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