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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations by clarifying that this is only a public overview, that the full Pillr score is not served, and that the complete analysis lives on pillr.fr.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose and enumerates the returned data points in the first sentence, then adds the limitation in a short second sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by listing the main returned fields and explicitly stating what is excluded. Given the low complexity (one required parameter, read-only operation, no nested data), this is nearly complete, though it could briefly mention the shape or format of the response.

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%, and the schema already documents the commune parameter well with examples and accepted forms. The description itself does not add much beyond 'commune', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource (a commune) and the action (providing a public market synthesis) with a concrete list of what is included: prices per m², median rents, gross yield, price trends, and tension zone. This implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like prix_m2_commune (price-only) and demarche_urbanisme_projet (urban planning procedure).

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 provides clear context about the tool's scope and even states what is not returned (the Pillr score and full analysis). However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over the sibling tools or give alternative names, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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