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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Lecture seule' merely repeats structured data. The one genuinely added piece of context is 'Indicatif — dimensionnement aeroulique signe prime', which warns the result is indicative and defers to a signed aeraulic sizing — useful, but the only real disclosure.

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 trigger condition is front-loaded and every clause carries content: component codes, scene shape, the indicative caveat, and read-only status. It is dense with internal codes but there is little filler; the closing 'Lecture seule' is the only near-redundant fragment.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what a check actually yields, and it does not — an agent cannot tell whether this returns a conformance verdict, a component list, or missing-element findings. The scope and indicative caveat are covered, but the return expectations are a clear gap for a verification tool.

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 already documented as a nested 'climatisation_gainable {unite, gaines, reprise, regulation}'. The description restates exactly that same structure without adding expected field formats, units, or validation expectations, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('VERIFIER LA CLIMATISATION GAINABLE (MEP)') and enumerates the exact components covered: CG-UNITE, CG-GAINES, CG-REPRISE, CG-REGULATION. That is enough to separate it from broad HVAC siblings like cao_bim_cvc, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 a triggering condition, which is implied usage rather than explicit guidance. In a family with dozens of near-neighbours (cao_bim_cvc, cao_bim_mep_aeraulique, cao_bim_vmc, cao_bim_double_flux, cao_bim_rafraichissement) it gives no exclusions or routing advice for when a different tool is the right one.

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