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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior beyond the schema: the data is 'latest publishable' (not historical), annual granularity, per delivery point, and crucially that missing data means 'unavailable', not zero. However, it says nothing about auth, rate limits, coverage gaps for small communes, or failure behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then unit, then exclusions — no filler sentences. The telegraphic fragments ('No professional data, no geographic fallback, no household estimate') are dense but slightly clipped, which costs a point on readability rather than on waste.

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 and no annotations, the description does the work of explaining the return content (annual kWh per delivery point, plus source and year) and the null-vs-zero semantics, which is the key thing an agent needs. It is only incomplete on input validation and error/coverage edge cases.

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 0% — the single parameter code_insee has only a regex pattern (5 digits or 2A/2B prefix) and no prose. The description implies via 'one French commune' that the parameter identifies a commune, which adds some meaning, but it never states that the value must be an INSEE code or what happens with an unknown code.

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 resource and metric: residential electricity consumption for one French commune, measured as annual kWh per delivery point. The word 'electricity' plus 'residential' cleanly separates it from the gas-consumption sibling, and 'one commune' separates it from the city/address search siblings.

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?

Gives explicit when-not-to-use conditions: no professional data, no geographic fallback, no household estimate, which tells an agent when this tool will return nothing useful. It stops short of naming the sibling to use instead (e.g. gas consumption or city search), so it lacks the alternative-routing that would earn a 5.

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