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.