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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: missing facts come back as questions, never as assumptions; each conclusion carries its rule, source, and rule-base date; and the connector deliberately does not read PLU or servitudes without an address. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core output and followed by behavioral rules and limitations. Every sentence earns its place; there is no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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?

Given the 34-parameter schema with 100% individual descriptions and no output schema, the description still provides what the agent needs: output semantics (rule, source, date), handling of missing data, and the key invocation limitation (no address means no automatic PLU/servitude reading). This is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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. The description adds cross-cutting meaning by explaining why many protection-related parameters exist ('les protections du terrain sont à déclarer en paramètres') and by clarifying that missing facts will be asked as follow-up questions, which helps an agent decide which optional parameters matter.

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 opens with the exact question the tool answers—which urban-planning formality applies to a works project—and enumerates concrete outputs: formality type, Cerfa form, architect obligation, required documents, and review delay. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which concern market prices and commune-level data.

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?

The description states important scope constraints: without an address, it does not read PLU or servitudes, and it provides general information, not legal advice or an official town-hall decision. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the siblings are in a different domain and the intended use is evident from the first sentence.

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