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 does disclose the returned fields (immatriculation, nom, adresse, commune, nombre de lots, syndic), which is useful, but it says nothing about read-only nature, matching behavior (accent/partial matching), result ordering, or the 12-result ceiling beyond what the schema's limit parameter already documents.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and searchable fields, then the return payload. Zero filler; the inline examples earn their space by clarifying input formats.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the returned fields, making it complete enough to call correctly. Minor gaps remain around matching semantics and result ordering, but nothing essential for invocation is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by giving three concrete query formats ('12 rue Mirabeau Vincennes', 'Le Steir Vannes', 'AB8299521') that disambiguate the string vs. address vs. registration-number modes of the single query parameter.

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 ('Trouver') and resource ('une copropriété française') with the searchable fields enumerated, plus concrete query examples. It never names the sibling get_copropriete or explains how this differs from fetching a single record by ID, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the accepted query forms (name, address, commune, registration number), which tells the agent what inputs are valid but not when to prefer this tool over get_copropriete or get_commune. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are stated.

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