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 readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a 5-year DVF lookback window, a 500 m radius for landslide/éboulement records, point-level altitude and PPR lookup, and the specific official registries consulted. It does not mention data freshness lag or response size, which keeps it from a 5.

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 opening clause is well front-loaded with the resource, and the example questions are useful. But the middle is an undifferentiated run-on enumeration of nine data domains, and the entire content is then repeated in English, making it long for a one-parameter lookup tool.

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, the description must carry return-value semantics, and it does so thoroughly by naming every field family the agent will get back. Combined with the annotated safety profile, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only ambiguity about overlap with hazard-monitoring siblings remains.

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 all three accepted forms (address, lieu-dit, 'lat, lon'). The description only adds French example strings that largely duplicate the schema, 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 resource (official records for an address in Réunion) and enumerates the exact data domains returned: cadastral parcel, PLU zoning, altitude, DVF median prices, PPR hazards, disaster decrees, landslides within 500 m, seismicity, radon. No sibling tool covers cadastre/urbanisme/prix, so it is clearly distinguishable from the weather/risk-monitoring siblings.

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 'Pour : « cette parcelle est constructible ? »…' lines give concrete trigger questions that map directly to the tool, which is strong usage context. It stops short of explicit exclusions — an agent unsure whether hazard questions belong here or in volcan_seismes / crues_rivieres / vigilance_meteo gets no routing guidance.

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