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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the result is 'Indicatif' and signed ERP regulations and the CCTP take precedence, which tells the agent how much weight to give the output. It remains silent on return shape and any rate/scope limits.

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?

It is short and front-loads the call trigger before the field enumeration. The final clause restating 'scene : atrium {structure, vitrage, desenfumage, securite}' duplicates the schema description word for word, a minor redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what a 'check' returns, and it never says. It is adequate for selecting the tool but leaves the agent guessing about the result structure of this indicative multi-domain audit.

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 a single nested parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'scene : atrium {structure, vitrage, desenfumage, securite}' merely repeats the schema text verbatim rather than clarifying the shape or expectations for the nested object.

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 states a specific verb ('VERIFIER') and resource ('ATRIUM / hall vitre central') and enumerates the four checked domains (structure, vitrage, desenfumage, securite) with their ATR- codes, which sets it apart from narrower siblings like cao_bim_desenfumage or cao_bim_vitrages. It does not name an alternative tool, so it falls short of the sibling-differentiation bar for a 5.

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'ATRIUM' gives an explicit trigger condition. However, with hundreds of sibling tools in this namespace, there is no statement of when NOT to use it or which narrower sibling to prefer for a single-aspect check.

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