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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it says nothing beyond subject matter: no indication that it is a read-only lookup, no rate limits, pagination, or result-size expectations. For a data-retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable 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 efficient sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded. No filler, though it is arguably too terse to resolve the ambiguity of 'chiffres'.

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?

The tool is simple (one required param, no output schema, no nesting), and the schema covers the input, so little is strictly required. However, the description never clarifies what 'les chiffres' actually are (counts vs. aggregate metrics vs. records), which is the main thing an agent needs to judge relevance.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema (with examples 33, 75, 2A, 974). The description reinforces the valid code range (01–976, 2A, 2B) and thus adds marginal value, so the baseline 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?

It states the resource (copropriété data for a French department) but the verb is vague — 'les chiffres' could mean counts, statistics, or a listing, so an agent cannot tell exactly what is returned. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_commune and get_copropriete by operating at the department level, but does not say so explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over get_commune, get_copropriete, or search_coproprietes. The department scope is implied by the name and description but no condition or alternative is stated.

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