France Energy Ratings (DPE): Homes, Energy Certificates, Sieves

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the pay-per-result cost model (run start $0.003, energy rating $0.001), a genuinely useful economic trait absent from structured fields. It does not describe pagination cost behavior, which keeps it short of 5.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the purpose and returned fields are front-loaded, then the pricing detail follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so explicitly (energy and CO2 class, surface, consumption, estimated bill). Safety is covered by annotations and cost by the description, leaving nothing an agent needs 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (including the F/G 'passoires thermiques' nuance and Paris/Lyon/Marseille arrondissement behavior). The description only obliquely echoes the 'city or postal code' location input and adds no syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (energy performance certificates / DPE for homes in a French city or postal code) and names the authoritative source (ADEME open data). The listed payload (energy and CO2 class, surface, consumption, estimated yearly bill) makes it unmistakably distinct from sibling French-data tools like get_france_property_sales and get_france_building_permits.

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?

The description explains what the data is but gives no routing guidance: no when-to-use conditions and no mention of alternatives against siblings like get_france_property_sales. An agent must infer the use case from the resource name alone.

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