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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Lecture seule' is redundant. The genuinely additive part is the 'Indicatif' caveat that normative standards and signed CCTP prevail — real behavioral context for a compliance-flavored check. However, nothing is said about what the check produces (findings per axis? violations?), so the result shape stays opaque.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the trigger comes first, then the four axes, then the caveat and read-only flag. Minor redundancy — 'Lecture seule' duplicates the annotations and the scene line duplicates the schema description — but no sentence is wasted.

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 read-only verification tool with no output schema, the agent still does not know what comes back per axis (pass/fail, list of anomalies, ratios) or how to interpret an 'indicative' verdict. The four axes and the standards caveat cover enough to invoke it, but not enough to consume the result confidently.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is a nested object, so the schema already carries the burden; the description simply restates it ('scene : chemin_cables {cheminement, fixation, capacite, separation}'). No added meaning such as whether the chemin_cables key is mandatory, what units are expected, or what happens if the sub-object is absent (required parameters = 0).

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 and resource ('VERIFIER LES CHEMINS DE CABLES') and enumerates the four check families it covers (cheminement, fixation, capacite, separation), each tagged with a stable code. Among the hundreds of cao_bim_* siblings, an agent can tell this is the cable-tray check, not the circuits, goulottes or courants-faibles tools, without opening the schema.

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 trigger is explicit and front-loaded ('Appelez quand vous devez...'), and the 'Indicatif — NF C 15-100 et CCTP signes priment' note tells the agent how to frame the result. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing to a sibling (e.g. when the question is about electrical circuits rather than tray routing).

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