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, and it discloses almost nothing: it is implicitly a read operation but never says so, and says nothing about what happens if neither name nor siret is supplied (both are optional). No auth, rate-limit, or response-shape context is offered.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no filler, which is good, but it is a noun-phrase list rather than a front-loaded purpose statement, so the reader must parse the whole enumeration before understanding the action. Adequately sized, poorly led.

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?

For a two-parameter lookup with a fully documented schema, the description's enumeration of the returned attributes (buildings managed, expiring mandates, missing collective DPE, covered communes) partially compensates for the absent output schema. However, with no annotations and no verb or usage context, it remains thin for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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%: both `name` and `siret` are documented in the schema, including the 14-digit SIRET format and the 'or name' alternation hint. The description adds nothing about the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does the work.

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 (a professional copropriété syndic) and enumerates its key attributes, which gives useful domain grounding, but it never states a retrieval verb — it reads as a data-dictionary fragment rather than an action. It also does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like get_copropriete or get_commune. The purpose is inferable from the name plus the field list, but it is not stated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus get_copropriete, get_commune, get_departement, or search_coproprietes. No condition, prerequisite, or exclusion is given. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and the enumerated fields.

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