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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the authoritative source (official ANAH registry, 656,000 condos, refreshed daily), the legal basis for the mandate horizon (3 years max, art. 28 decree 67-223), and a pay-per-call cost of 0.01 USDC via x402 — a material behavioral fact an agent must know before invoking. It stops short of describing failure behavior for invalid or unknown registry numbers.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the resource and mandate-end concept, then layers scope, returned fields, source, audience, and price. Nearly every clause carries information, though the pricing and x402 payment note arrives last and would be more useful earlier since it affects whether an agent should call at all.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers source provenance, coverage size, refresh cadence, returned attributes, cost model, and batch limits — enough for correct invocation. The unresolved multi-value input encoding and absent error semantics are the only meaningful holes.

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 0% — the lone 'immatriculations' string has no description — so the description must compensate, and it does: it identifies the value as a condominium registry number, supplies a concrete format example (AA2002871), and states the 1-to-50 cardinality. The remaining gap is that it never says how multiple registry numbers are encoded in a single string (delimiter? JSON array?), which is the one detail the caller most needs.

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 a specific resource — the condominium syndic (property manager), its SIRET, and the declared mandate end date — plus the exact fields returned (days left, status, lots, address). It is clearly not a generic search tool. However, it opens with a noun phrase rather than a verb and never distinguishes itself from the sibling syndic_echeances, so an agent cannot route between them from this text alone.

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?

Guidance is limited to an audience statement ('For syndics, insurers, building contractors') and a batch bound ('For 1 to 50 French condominiums'). There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against syndic_echeances or syndic_example, so the agent must guess which sibling handles deadline-type queries versus this lookup.

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