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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive/openWorld, and the description reinforces with "Lecture seule" while adding the non-obvious caveat that results are "Indicatif" and subordinate to a signed calculation note — real behavioral context an agent would otherwise miss. It does not say what the response looks like or how results are graded, which keeps it below 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?

Single front-loaded imperative clause followed by the four sub-checks and the indicative/read-only caveat; every segment carries information. The compressed code-and-brace notation is dense but not padded.

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 single-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema check tool, the description covers scope, the four check families, and the authority caveat. What remains unstated is the shape of the returned diagnostic (per-family status? findings list?), which an agent writing the follow-up call would benefit from.

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?

There is one optional parameter (scene) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description's "scene : assemblages_acier {boulons, serrage, soudures, platine}" merely restates the schema text and adds no syntax, required-vs-optional, or structure guidance beyond it.

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 (VERIFIER) and resource (assemblage acier / connexions métalliques) and enumerates the four checked families with reference codes (AS-BOULONS, AS-SERRAGE, AS-SOUDURES, AS-PLATINE), which genuinely separates it from broad steel siblings like cao_bim_ossature_acier or cao_bim_structure. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from scope rather than stated.

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 VERIFIER L'ASSEMBLAGE ACIER" gives an explicit trigger condition, and the caveat "note de calcul d'assemblage signée prime" signals the boundary where this tool's output should be superseded by a signed design note. No alternative tool is named for the adjacent case (e.g. if you only need the steel frame model itself), so routing is implied rather than resolved.

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