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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered; the closing "Indicatif. Lecture seule." adds that the verdict is indicative rather than normative — a genuinely useful expectation-setter. It also names the regulatory basis applied, which explains what the audit encodes.

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 the trigger condition, then the rule set, then parameter values and the read-only note. The dense threshold enumeration is long but each item evidences a rule the tool applies; it could be tightened without losing selection value.

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 tool with a nested scene object (100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description gives enough domain rules to know what the audit checks and that the answer is indicative. It stops short of describing the shape of the audit result (per-criterion findings vs. a single verdict/score).

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 both parameters are documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the type_batiment values (erp default | iop | habitation) and hints that thresholds vary by type (0,90 m vs 0,83 m habitation), but never explicitly maps which parameter drives which building-type exception.

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+resource: auditing the PMR (disabled-access) compliance of a building scene, and even enumerates the concrete criteria checked (door widths, ramp slopes, parking ratio, arrêté du 20 avril 2017). This clearly separates it from generic siblings like cao_bim_conformite or cao_bim_reglementations, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

"Appelez quand vous devez auditer l'ACCESSIBILITE PMR d'une scene (ERP, bureaux ou habitation ADAP)" gives an explicit triggering condition and the building types in scope. There is no when-not guidance or named alternative for adjacent checks (fire safety, acoustics, general conformity).

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