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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral caveat beyond that: only the FIRST address matching the supplied label is profiled, which affects how an agent should interpret results. It says nothing about lookup failures or result ambiguity beyond that.

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, both dense with information and no filler; the contents list is front-loaded and the matching caveat trails it appropriately. Slightly list-heavy but every item 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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and annotations carry the safety and world-access profile. For a single-parameter read tool, the description plus those structured fields give the agent everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 0% for the single 'address' parameter, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the input is a free-text 'libellé' and that only the first match is used, which is real added meaning, but gives no format or syntax guidance (e.g. street-number/city format) and no hint about what happens when nothing matches.

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 concrete verb-resource pair (return the public profile of an address) and then enumerates exactly what the profile contains: commune, nearby parcels, risks, RNB buildings, PLU zoning, RNIC, DPE. That enumeration effectively distinguishes it from get_parcel_profile, though the sibling is never named.

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 never says when to use this tool versus get_parcel_profile or search_places, and gives no prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the word 'adresse' and the enumerated contents, so the agent must infer routing from sibling names alone.

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