risques_immobilier

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

Without annotations, the description discloses that free addresses are automatically geocoded to identify the commune, a key behavioral trait. It does not mention error handling or response format, but this is partially covered by the output schema.

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 description is well-structured with bullet points and clear sections, but includes slightly redundant phrasing. Every sentence adds value, so it is efficient but not ultra-concise.

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?

Covers input, purpose, and a behavioral nuance (geocoding). With an output schema present, it does not need to explain return values. Could mention whether multiple risks are aggregated, but overall complete for a risk-inspection tool.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds essential meaning: explains the parameter accepts either an INSEE code or free address, provides concrete examples, and clarifies the geocoding behavior. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 clearly states the tool provides natural and technological risks for a French commune, listing specific hazards (inondation, retrait-gonflement, séisme, etc.) and distinguishing it from siblings like dpe_logement, geocode_address, and resolve_commune.

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?

Explicitly advises consulting before a real estate purchase and explains acceptable inputs (INSEE code or free address). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives.

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