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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the verdicts are computed against current electricity rules for label estimation, DPE validity is reported, and it explicitly disclaims that this is information, not legal advice.

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?

The purpose and policy context are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a short narrowing instruction and a disclaimer. The single dense sentence is information-rich without padding, though it is long enough that the output enumeration could have been split for readability.

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 and no annotations covering return values, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (DPE, rentability, rent-freeze status, ban date with year thresholds, validity, estimated label). No auth, rate-limit or error behavior is described, but for a read-only lookup that gap is minor.

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 75% (address, surface and complement are documented; floor is not), so the schema does most of the work. The description adds the useful framing that floor/surface/complement are narrowing filters, but contributes no format or semantic detail the schema lacks, which matches the baseline for high coverage.

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+resource (returns each dwelling's DPE and its rental verdict under the Climate and Resilience law) and enumerates uniquely scoped outputs — rentability, rent freeze, ban dates, validity, estimated label. This clearly separates it from the sibling get_dpe, which returns raw DPE data without a rental verdict.

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?

It names the context (a French postal address) and tells the agent how to narrow results with floor, surface or address complement, which implies usage. However, it never states when to prefer this over the sibling get_dpe, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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