Energy performance diagnostics (DPE)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the data source (ADEME open data) and the nature of the data (official certificates), which adds credibility and context. However, it does not disclose behavior such as what happens when no DPE is found, whether the tool returns partial matches, or whether the data is updated/complete. The description is honest but thin on behavioral detail.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the source. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not mention what the response looks like (e.g., list of DPE records), how to interpret missing results, or any rate limits. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, a bit more context about return behavior would make it complete.

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 three parameters (address, limit, dataset). The description adds context about what the DPE contains (energy label, GES label, surface, construction year) but does not add meaning beyond the schema for the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a specific resource ('official energy performance certificates (DPE)'), and the key attributes (energy label A-G, GES label, surface, construction year). It also names the source (ADEME open data) and the geographic scope (French address), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like geocode_address or property_sales.

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 implies usage for French addresses and DPE lookups, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like property_report or commune_info. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., that the address must be in France, or that DPE may not exist for all buildings). The context is clear enough for a basic lookup, but no explicit routing guidance is provided.

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