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

Annotations provide destructiveHint: true, and the description clarifies the operation creates a new property for the connected user. It does not add deeper behavioral context such as irreversibility, permissions, or what exactly happens upon success, so it is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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, efficient sentence followed by concise enumerations. Every element adds value, and the structure front-loads the core action before listing parameter conventions. No filler or repetition.

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 19 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this tool requires more contextual support than the description provides. It does not mention return values, error behavior, date formats, or examples, making it incomplete for complex use cases.

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 has 19 parameters with 0% coverage, and the description adds useful meanings by stating units (euros, m²) and allowed values for type, rental_type, and tva_regime. However, many other parameters such as acquisition_date, land_percentage, and is_primary_residence remain unexplained, leaving significant gaps.

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 uses the specific verb 'Crée' and the resource 'nouveau bien immobilier LMNP', clearly indicating a create operation for a new property. It also scopes to the connected user, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_property, get_property, and list_properties.

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 use for creating a property but does not explicitly state when to use it versus update_property or other create tools. It lacks direct usage guidance or exclusions, though the context makes the basic intent obvious.

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