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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description repeats 'Lecture seule'. What it adds beyond the annotations is the reliability caveat: 'Indicatif — documentation fabricant signee prime', which tells the agent the output is heuristic and must not override signed manufacturer documentation. That is real decision-relevant context, though return shape and verdict semantics are unspecified.

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?

One dense, front-loaded block that leads with the trigger and ends with the caveat. It wastes a clause restating the schema ('scene : avis_technique {produit, avis, marquage, fabricant}'), but overall it is tight.

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 verifier, the description covers what is checked, that results are indicative, and who prevails in case of conflict. The main residual gap is what a result actually contains (pass/fail, missing documents, non-conformities).

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 param already carries the same '{produit, avis, marquage, fabricant}' hint, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds the AT-* code labels mapped to each key, which is a modest semantic gain, but it does not explain the nested object's value types or which keys are actually required.

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 opens with a specific verb in caps ('VERIFIER') and a precise resource ('AVIS TECHNIQUE / CERTIFICATION d'un produit ou fabricant'), then enumerates the four sub-checks with codes (AT-PRODUIT, AT-AVIS, AT-MARQUAGE, AT-FABRICANT). An agent immediately knows this is a certification/approval checker. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as cao_bim_certification, cao_bim_fiche_fabricant or cao_bim_referencement_fabricants.

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...' gives an explicit trigger condition with clear context. No exclusions or alternative tools are named, so the agent gets a when-to-use but not a when-not-to-use.

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