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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive/openWorld, and 'Lecture seule' merely restates that. The genuine added value is 'Indicatif — marche et CCTP signes priment', which tells the agent results are non-authoritative and contract documents override them — a behavioral caveat not present in any structured field.

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 actionable trigger is front-loaded and the whole text is a few dense clauses with no filler. Minor redundancy in listing both the CO-* codes and then repeating 'scene : commissioning {essais, reglages, pv, dossier}', which duplicates the schema description.

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 optional nested parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description never indicates what a 'check' returns (a verdict, a findings list, missing elements?) nor whether the nested object is required. The 'indicatif' caveat helps, but the return shape is left to inference.

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% and the description simply restates the same commissioning {essais, reglages, pv, dossier} object shape already documented in the schema. It adds no format, sourcing, or expectation about what should be supplied, so the 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 (VERIFIER) and resource (commissioning / mise en service) and enumerates the four covered sub-domains (essais, reglages, pv, dossier), so the agent knows exactly what is checked. It does not explicitly contrast itself with near-siblings such as cao_bim_equilibrage or cao_bim_reception, whose scope it partially overlaps.

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 LE COMMISSIONING' gives an explicit use trigger, which is more than most siblings offer. However, it names no alternative and no exclusion, which matters in a family of hundreds of cao_bim_* tools where equilibrage/reception could plausibly be chosen instead.

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