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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds what the resolution returns (centre, extent, sales count, INSEE codes) but says nothing about failure modes, ambiguous-name behaviour, or lookup scope beyond what the annotations imply.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then lists outputs; nothing is padded. The stacked clauses around the colon are slightly awkward to parse but every element carries information.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields (centre, extent, sales count, INSEE codes), which is exactly what an agent needs to know. It falls short only on ambiguity handling (multiple communes of the same name) and on clarifying how this differs from commune_profile.

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% and the single query parameter is already well documented in the schema, including the partial-name example ("Hardelot"). The description merely restates "city name or postcode" and adds no syntax or matching-behaviour detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb ("Resolves") and resource (city name or postcode) and enumerates what is produced: centre, extent, number of recorded sales, and INSEE codes. It also implicitly differentiates itself from siblings by naming crime_stats as the consumer of its output, though it doesn't state how it differs from commune_profile or property_prices.

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 clause "(INSEE codes) for crime_stats" implies this is the geocoding step to run before crime_stats, which is useful routing context. However there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no mention of what to do when a name resolves to multiple communes.

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