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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by marking the result as 'Indicatif' and stating that DTU 20.12 and signed CCTP take precedence; it does not describe the return structure.

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 description is compact, front-loads the verification trigger, then lists the four criteria and the normative caveat. Every phrase carries useful information, and there is no filler.

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, indicative checking tool, the description covers when to call it, what is checked, and the normative limitation. The main remaining gap is that, with no output schema, it does not describe what the verification result will contain.

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 nested scene object is already documented. The description adds value by expanding each subfield semantically: fixation/scellement (CH-FIXATION), etancheite/pente (CH-ETANCHEITE), debord/rejet d'eau (CH-DEBORD), and materiau/protection (CH-MATERIAU).

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 and resource: verifying a wall coping ('VERIFIER LE CHAPERON de mur') and enumerates the four checked aspects. It is clearly more specific than generic verification tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as corniche, bandeaux, or acroteres.

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?

The opening 'Appelez quand vous devez VERIFIER...' gives an explicit usage trigger. The caveat that DTU 20.12 and signed CCTP prevail clarifies authority, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative tool.

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