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 genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the data domains returned and an explicit data exclusion (no owner information), which is the kind of boundary an agent cannot get from structured fields. It does not discuss not-found handling or the fact that data is aggregated from multiple external registries, which the openWorldHint implies.

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?

One sentence front-loads the core purpose and enumerates the payload, followed by a short exclusion clause. Nothing is wasted and there is no restating of the title or annotations.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; the fully documented single required parameter leaves little gap. The only shortfall is that edge-case behavior (invalid or unknown parcel ID, empty registries) is unmentioned, which is minor for a read-only lookup.

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 single parameter parcel_id is documented in the schema with a 14-character format and a regex pattern. The description says nothing about the identifier format or accepted values, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 specific resource (a public cadastral parcel profile) and enumerates exactly what it returns: location, risks, RNB buildings, five years of DVF sales, and attached RNIC co-ownerships. It also draws a firm boundary ('Ne fournit pas le propriétaire'). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names a sibling such as get_address_profile, so the routing between them relies on the word 'parcelle'.

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 only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it has a cadastral parcel ID and needs the aggregated public profile. The negative statement 'Ne fournit pas le propriétaire' usefully signals a case this tool does not cover, but no alternative tool is named for that need and no explicit when-to-use condition is stated.

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