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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: one row per permit with parcels, address and per-destination surfaces, sorting by descending authorization date, and an explicit non-exhaustive coverage caveat. The important caveat that a permit involving a hotel does not necessarily create a new hotel further shapes how results should be interpreted.

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 every subsequent sentence carries non-redundant information (return shape, date omission, surface semantics, coverage limit). It is a dense single block rather than a structured list, which makes it slightly harder to scan but not padded.

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 10 optional parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden well and flags coverage limits. The notable gap is whether any geographic filter is required (all parameters are optional) and how commune, département and région combine or restrict one another — the schema hints at this only partially.

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 would be 3. The description goes beyond it by explaining that 'destination' is matched against declared surfaces and that created/converted surfaces are distinct from demolished ones — semantics that crucially link the destination and operation_destination parameters in a way the enum values alone do not convey.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Recherche les autorisations d'urbanisme Sitadel') and enumerates the geographic scopes (commune, intercommunalité, département, région) plus the destination filter. The resource itself — urban planning permits — is unique among the siblings (parcelles, DVF, DPE, communes), so an agent can distinguish it without opening the 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?

It gives operational guidance: omit the date to get the latest permits, omit destination for all destinations, and it warns that results are restricted to permits tied to cadastral parcels. It never names an alternative tool or states a when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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