Cadastre, urbanisme, prix immobiliers et risques à une adresse de La Réunion

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, so the description need not restate safety. It adds substantive behavior: official registers as source, a 5-year DVF window, a 500 m hazard radius, and specific PPR/risk categories, though it does not discuss missing-data handling or response limitations.

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 front-loaded and information-dense, but the full bilingual duplication and long list of example questions make it longer than necessary. The content largely earns its place, so it is efficient but not maximally 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?

For a complex multi-source lookup with no output schema and only annotations for read-only/idempotent behavior, the description covers the domains, temporal and spatial scope, and input format well. It leaves out return shape, failure/missing-data behavior, and source-freshness caveats, so it is not fully 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 coverage is 100% and the single adresse parameter already documents address, lieu-dit, or 'lat, lon' input. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or validation guidance beyond the schema.

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 resource—an address-level fact sheet combining cadastral parcel, PLU zoning, altitude, DVF prices, and hazards for Réunion—and enumerates the exact outputs. That is far more than the name/title and lets an agent distinguish this from the weather/service siblings, which cover none of these domains.

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?

It gives explicit question examples ('cette parcelle est constructible ?', 'prix au m² des maisons à l'Hermitage ?') that show when to invoke it, which is strong context. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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