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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: the 10-credit cost, the at-least-one-location constraint, and the shape of the returned distribution, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then constraints, then a compact example and cost line. Formatting is scannable and every element earns its place; the example JSON is slightly long but directly useful given there is no output schema.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by showing the response shape (count, distribution, pct) in an example. Required-parameter semantics are fully specified. It lacks coverage of error behavior or result-size limits, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema cannot express: the cross-parameter requirement that at least one of code_postal/commune/code_departement be supplied (the schema marks zero required fields). It also clarifies that distribution is per energy class A–G.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('DPE class distribution') with a clear scope ('for a location') and spells out the return payload (count and share of A–G ratings). It is distinguishable from siblings like analyze_dpe_price_premium and analyze_dpe_price_and_thermal_risk, which concern price rather than class distribution.

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?

Gives clear operating context: REQUIRED at least one location parameter (code_postal, commune, or code_departement), OPTIONAL type_batiment and date_debut filters, plus a worked example and a cost figure. It does not name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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