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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: data provenance (DVF, ANIL/DHUP, ADEME, Géorisques, DGFiP, ARCEP), time windows, comparison baselines (département and France), and the 'metropolitan France' scope limit for mobile coverage. It says nothing about response size or latency for what is clearly a very heavy aggregate call.

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 content is dense rather than padded, and with no output schema the return-value enumeration arguably earns its place. But it is delivered as one enormous run-on sentence joined by semicolons, with no headings or bullets, making it hard to parse. Front-loading exists but is immediately buried under the enumeration.

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 describing returns, and it does so exhaustively — every metric, unit, source and comparison is stated. The main missing piece is usage routing against siblings, which is a guidelines concern rather than a return-shape one.

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%, so all five parameters (lat, lng, place, address, commune) are already documented, including precedence rules. The description only echoes the accepted inputs ('by name, INSEE code or position') and adds that a département code is valid, which the schema also states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 makes clear this is a comprehensive commune-level profile, enumerating the exact datasets returned (rents, DPE, risks, taxes, internet). It is a distinct resource from point-lookup siblings like street_prices or sales_at_address. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings such as property_prices, ptz, crime_stats and rank_communes, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the thirteen siblings. With overlapping tools like property_prices, ptz and crime_stats present, the absence of routing guidance ('use this when you need everything about a commune; use X for a single metric') is a real gap. Usage is only implied by the breadth of the enumeration.

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