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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context — that entries are dated and sourced to the manager's press release or bulletin — but says nothing about ordering, completeness, or what an empty result means.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence beginning with the verb and containing no filler. The chain of comma-joined qualifiers ('datées et sourcées au communiqué ou au bulletin du gestionnaire') makes it slightly dense to scan, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a two-parameter, zero-required read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and where it comes from. Only minor points remain open, such as whether the day window is measured against the announcement date and how results are ordered.

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 both parameters are documented there, including the 90-day default and 730-day maximum. The description only restates that the SCPI filter is optional, adding essentially no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Liste') plus a well-scoped resource ('acquisitions d'immeubles annoncées par les SCPI') and adds the provenance of the data. It is clearly distinct from fiche_scpi, comparer_scpi or mouvements_prix by virtue of being about property acquisitions, but it never names a sibling to route against.

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?

'éventuellement pour une seule SCPI' implies that the tool can be used broadly or narrowed to one manager, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-prefer-a-sibling guidance and no exclusions. Usage has to be inferred from the phrasing.

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