Aucadastre

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real scope constraints beyond annotations — owners are legal entities only ('jamais un particulier'), sales are limited to the last five years, parcel history since 2017 — but says nothing about response shape, rate limits, or coverage 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?

The description is a single sprawling run-on sentence enumerating a dozen data categories with no headers, bullets, or front-loaded summary. Every item is arguably content-relevant, but the structure makes the high-value information hard to locate.

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, the description must convey return content, and it does so exhaustively at the category level, including non-obvious items (risks, solar potential, écoles/entreprises). Only formatting or granularity of the response is left unspecified, which is a minor gap for a single-parameter lookup 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 100% and the schema already states the address is free-form text with an optional number. The description adds the meaningful consequence that omitting the number resolves to the street's reference point, which the schema does not explain.

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 is a dense inventory of an address-level dataset (parcelle, zonage, risques, permis, ventes, diagnostics, écoles), so an agent can tell it returns aggregated facts about a specific French address rather than a single entity. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from siblings like get_french_parcel or get_french_commune_facts, whose subjects it overlaps with.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite three closely related siblings (commune facts, parcel, building permits). The only usage-like statement is about input format ('L'adresse se donne en toutes lettres'), which is parameter guidance rather than tool selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent behavior, and the description adds meaningful context: it returns the 500 most recent records and states that the API paginates the rest, while noting the data comes from commune declarations to the ministry. This is valuable beyond the annotations, though pagination mechanics are not detailed.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the permit types, then lists the returned fields, data source, and pagination limit. Every clause adds information, though breaking it into shorter sentences or bullets would improve scannability.

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, the description carries the full burden of explaining return content, and it lists all relevant fields (date, nature, address, parcel, housing/surface, status, applicant if legal entity). It also covers the key behavioral constraint of the 500-record limit and pagination, making the tool complete for a single-parameter read-only query.

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 single parameter code_insee is already fully documented in the schema with a pattern and an example (94081 Vitry-sur-Seine), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but that is unnecessary at this coverage level.

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: building, development, demolition permits and prior declarations in a French commune, with a precise data source (Sitadel) and field list. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools (address facts, commune facts, parcel), which cover different data domains.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: any time permit/urbanism authorization data for a commune is needed, keyed by code_insee. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource is distinct enough from the siblings that no comparison is needed.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the three city-to-arrondissement redirect behavior and the fact that the returned text is identical to the .md twin of the commune page. It still doesn't describe pagination or response size, so not a 5.

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 single enumeration sentence is long but front-loaded with the resource and every listed facet earns its place, since there is no output schema to convey the return payload. The trailing arrondissement/`.md` note is relevant, not filler. Slight run-on density prevents a 5.

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 only one well-documented parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the enumerated return facets give an agent enough to know what it will receive. The main missing piece is response size/format expectations, but coverage is otherwise adequate.

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 100% — code_insee is fully documented with pattern and example (94081 Vitry-sur-Seine) — so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds nothing about the single input parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 declares a specific resource (a French commune) and enumerates concrete facets it returns: addressed streets, median price per m², rent, property tax rate, urbanism documents, A/B/C market zone, fibre coverage, risks, delinquency (SSMSI), tap water/PFAS. This is clearly a commune-level facts tool, distinguishable in kind from the sibling parcel/building-permit/address tools. It lacks an explicit contrast with those siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 when-to-use guidance and no comparison to the sibling tools (get_french_parcel, get_french_building_permits). However, the closing note that Paris, Marseille and Lyon resolve to their arrondissements is a genuine usage rule that changes how an agent should call the tool. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds significant output-content transparency by listing returned fields, excluding ownership data, and directing legal-person ownership lookups to another record.

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 dense sentences cover purpose, input format, returned fields, and ownership limitations without obvious filler. The term 'jumeau' is slightly cryptic, but the description remains compact and mostly 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, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so by naming area, commune, nearest road, and ownership exclusion. The vague phrase 'tout le reste' leaves some output details unspecified, but the core invocation context is complete.

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 100%, so the parameter is already documented, but the description adds meaning by decomposing the identifier into INSEE code, prefix, section, and number components. This helps an agent understand the expected identifier structure beyond the schema pattern and example.

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 (a French cadastral parcel), the input key (14-character identifier), and the main returned fields (contenance, commune, nearest road). It is clear enough to distinguish this from siblings focused on addresses, permits, or communes, though it does not name those siblings directly.

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 gives a useful when-not/alternative signal: the owner is not returned here, legal-person owners are found via the road's twin, and individual owners are unavailable. This guides the agent away from expecting owner data from this tool, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tool to use instead.

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