get_department_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the estimated recall (~0.6), warns that a missing detection does not mean no installation exists, flags kwp/surface/tilt/azimuth as model estimates rather than surveyed values, and explains that the profile blends pre-computed stats with live counts. These are exactly the caveats an agent needs before presenting this data.

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?

Front-loaded with what the profile returns, then caveats, then the pointer to the reference tool. Every sentence carries information, though the quality_filter aside is only loosely tied to this tool since it has no such parameter, which adds mild length.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and their caveats, and it routes the agent to get_data_quality_reference for deeper assessment. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and correctly interpret this tool is missing.

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% and the single 'dpt' parameter is already documented as a French département code in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case guidance beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('one-call profile of a département') and enumerates the exact contents: capacity and national rank, yearly trend, source mix, 2+ source share, RNB match share. The composite framing makes it distinguishable from narrow siblings like get_department_capacity_stats and get_department_yearly_stats without opening their schemas.

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?

Gives a clear routing instruction ('Call get_data_quality_reference for the full picture before assessing fitness for a specific use case') and clarifies the meaning of the 2+ source share in this server. It stops short of explicitly stating when to prefer this tool over the single-stat department siblings, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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