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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds a meaningful reliability nuance — the check is indicative and a signed tertiary CCTP takes precedence — beyond the safety profile, though it says little about output or failure behavior.

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-loads the call trigger and then packs domains, input shape, and caveat into a compact block. There is minor redundancy in restating the scene shape already present in the schema.

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 simple single-parameter read-only check with annotations covering safety, the description supplies scope, input shape, and a reliability caveat. It does not explain what a verification returns, which is the main remaining gap given there is no output schema.

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 parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'scene' object. The description repeats the same bureau {eclairage, ventilation, mobilier, cablage} structure without adding examples, constraints, or semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('BUREAU (tertiaire)') and enumerates the four checked domains (eclairage, ventilation, mobilier, cablage). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as cao_bim_office or the individual domain tools, leaving some ambiguity in a very large toolset.

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?

Gives an explicit call trigger ('Appelez quand vous devez VERIFIER LE BUREAU') and a precedence caveat ('Indicatif — CCTP tertiaire signe prime'). It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it is clear but not complete.

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