Full property due-diligence report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It transparently lists all returned data categories and notes that valuation and yields are computed only when type_local and surface_m2 are supplied. It implies a read-only operation (a report), but does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior. Given the context, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 dense sentence that packs many data points without redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose ('One call, full dossier') and then enumerates components. It is slightly long but every element contributes to setting expectations. It could be broken into shorter phrases for readability, but it remains efficient.

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?

Given the tool's broad scope and the absence of an output schema, the description does a good job of listing all report sections and the condition for the valuation part. It states the required address and mentions the optional parameters that affect output. It does not describe error handling or what happens when data is unavailable, but for an aggregation tool this is acceptable. Overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 50% (address and type_local are described in the schema). The tool description adds meaning for type_local and surface_m2 by explaining they enable the valuation and yield calculations, which goes beyond the schema. However, it gives no explanation for the 'rooms' parameter, and does not clarify its role in the report. Thus it partially compensates for the schema coverage gap but leaves one parameter unexplained.

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 a specific verb ('produce a full dossier') and a precise resource ('French address'), and enumerates the many report components. It explicitly differentiates itself from the narrower sibling tools (rent_estimate, dpe_lookup, etc.) by being a comprehensive aggregate, and even positions itself as the 'ideal first call' for property questions.

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 gives clear context: it is the recommended first call when a user asks about a specific property. It implies that for focused sub-queries (e.g., just rent, just risks), the dedicated sibling tools should be used instead. It could be more explicit about when not to use it, but the guidance is unambiguous enough for an agent to route properly.

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