Average property tax by commune (REI)

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 result is an average proxy for taxe foncière on built properties, includes specific components, and cites the data source, giving the agent a realistic expectation of the output. It does not discuss rate limits or auth, but for a read-only tax lookup these are less critical, so this is adequate.

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 two sentences with no filler, placing the key return statement first and then the caveat and source. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and limitations.

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?

The description covers the output's nature, scope, components, and source, while the schema covers parameters and default behavior. It does not specify the currency or output format, but for an average tax estimate this is likely sufficient given the tool's simplicity. The absence of an output schema means details are left to the caller, but the essentials are present.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (year with default behavior, location accepting address, commune, or INSEE code), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so it relies on the schema baseline. A score of 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 clearly states it returns the annual average charge per taxable REI article for taxe foncière on built properties, listing included components. The title and context distinguish it from sibling tools like price_per_m2 or rent_estimate since it is the only tool addressing property tax. This provides a specific verb and resource that an agent can select accurately.

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 the tool is for aggregate tax averages by explicitly saying it is an aggregate proxy, not an individual property's tax bill. This tells the agent when not to use it, but it does not name alternative tools for individual tax estimates. The context is clear enough to guide selection, though explicit alternatives would strengthen it.

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