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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by signalling that this is a static explanatory reference whose content spans several methodological components, which is the trait an agent actually needs to know before calling it.

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 tight sentences: the first inventories the covered concepts, the second states the usage condition. Zero filler, and the content inventory is front-loaded before the citation guidance.

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 zero-parameter, annotation-covered reference tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough — what topics are documented and when to cite them. It could go slightly further by indicating the form of the response (e.g. a narrative explanation), but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameter-free, content-returning tool and therefore adds nothing that conflicts with the empty schema.

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 function — explaining how IMMONAI derives its figures — and enumerates the exact concepts covered (position/confidence, price gap vs DVF sales, expected rent, GO / À vérifier verdict, IMS Market Score). It is clearly a methodology reference rather than a data-lookup tool, which sets it apart from the sibling data tools by implication, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

"À citer quand on explique d'où vient un chiffre IMMONAI" provides a concrete invocation trigger: cite this when explaining/provenance of a number. It gives no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the trigger is unambiguous for the intended use.

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