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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial domain behavior: the CBS formula, coefficient values, threshold checks, and the regulatory caveat. It does not contradict the annotations and adds meaningful context beyond them.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the description is one sprawling semicolon-heavy sentence. It also repeats the scene field list already present in the schema and repeats 'Lecture seule' from the annotations, reducing conciseness.

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?

It explains the computation logic, thresholds, and caveat well enough for a domain check. However, with no output schema, it does not say what the tool returns (CBS value, pass/fail, individual threshold results), leaving the response shape to inference.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds interpretive meaning by mapping land-cover fields to coefficients and explaining that the threshold defaults to 0.2 or scene.seuil_cbs. This helps the agent use the nested scene parameters correctly.

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 action ('verifier la BIODIVERSITE d'une parcelle') and resource ('coefficient de biotope du PLU'), then gives the CBS formula. It is clearly distinguishable from the many generic BIM sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it ('Appelez quand vous devez verifier...') and gives the important caveat that the local PLU prevails. It does not name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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