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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only lists returned data categories and says nothing about whether this is a read operation, whether results are paginated, what auth is required, or what happens when a commune matches nothing. For a no-annotation tool this is a meaningful gap.

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 compact sentence fragment that front-loads the resource and then the facets. No filler, though the trailing list of six facets is dense and could be trimmed or grouped.

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 useful work by enumerating the returned facets, which is more than most definitions offer. However, it never clarifies the aggregated/nature of the response (counts vs. lists) or the read-only semantics, leaving gaps an agent would want filled.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including examples ('Vincennes', 'Paris 17e') and the INSEE-code alternative. The description adds no parameter meaning 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?

The description names the resource precisely (the co-ownerships of a single commune) and enumerates the facets returned (count, no collective DPE, expiring mandates, F/G housing, volunteer syndics, top syndics). This implicitly distinguishes it from get_copropriete (single building) and get_departement (higher level). It lacks an explicit verb and does not name any sibling, so it stops short of a 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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as search_coproprietes or get_copropriete. The agent must infer that this is the commune-level aggregation entry point purely from the resource name.

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