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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, but the description adds substantive semantics: every figure except the count is a percentage, and the data counts dwellings rather than households (a vacant flat appears here but in no census record). It does not cover pagination or response shape, though an output schema exists.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and nothing is padded with filler, but the remaining content is delivered as three very long, densely punctuated sentences that are harder to scan than they need to be.

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 handling return values and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers everything else an agent needs: scope, exclusions, sibling routing, and the dwellings-vs-households caveat. Nothing material 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 real meaning: the unit must have an urban area to return data, the default is Morocco as a whole, and the topic list is described in prose (occupancy split, building materials, network hookups). This goes beyond restating the schema.

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 resource (HCP's 2024 count of urban dwellings) and enumerates exactly what is measured – count, occupancy, type, age, walls, roofs, networks, shortfall. It explicitly separates itself from get_indicators, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening a schema.

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?

Names the alternatives and the conditions that select them: get_indicators' amenities topic for household-level water/electricity (rural included), its wastewater topic for public sewers, and list_communes for sorting. It also states the negative case – a unit with no urban area has nothing here.

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