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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and 'Lecture seule' merely restates that. The valuable additions are the threshold ('isolation >= 30 cm') and the caveat 'Indicatif — calcul thermique signe prime', which warns the agent the result is indicative and a signed thermal calculation overrides it.

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 phrase is front-loaded, and the checks, scene shape and caveat follow compactly with no filler. The coded labels (CO-*) are dense but each carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, but the enumerated checks and their codes make the expected result shape inferable, and the indicative-vs-signed caveat sets expectations. The only gap is that it does not say what happens for a missing attic entry or absent scene.

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 nested object is documented in the schema itself; the description repeats the same field list ({nom, isolation_cm, ventilation, acces, ecran}). It adds the meaning of 'isolation_cm' implicitly via the 30 cm threshold, but otherwise does not extend beyond the schema. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('VERIFIER LES COMBLES (enveloppe)') and enumerates the four sub-checks with their codes (CO-ISOLATION, CO-VENTILATION, CO-ACCES, CO-ECRAN). Against a sibling list dense with cao_bim_* inspection tools, this makes the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 LES COMBLES' gives an explicit trigger condition, which is more than most siblings offer. However, it names no alternative tool (e.g. roof-terrace or roof-covering checks) and states no when-not condition, so routing among the many envelope tools still requires inference.

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