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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Lecture seule' is largely redundant. The genuinely additive statement is that the result is indicative and that signed Eurocode 5 / CCTP documents take precedence, which warns the agent not to treat the output as a compliance verdict. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned findings.

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: trigger verb, then the check codes, then the parameter, then the caveat. The 'scene : contrefiches {section, fixation, position, protection}' fragment duplicates the schema and is the one part that does not earn its place.

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, single-parameter check tool with no output schema, the description covers what is checked, that the scene object is the input, and that findings are indicative. A short note on whether the four axes are returned individually would close the remaining gap.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, and the description restates the same nested structure ({section, fixation, position, protection}) already documented in the schema. It adds no format, unit, or accepted-value detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb (VÉRIFIER) and resource (contrefices) and enumerates the four check axes with codes (CF-SECTION, CF-FIXATION, CF-POSITION, CF-PROTECTION), so an agent knows exactly what gets validated. It does not, however, disambiguate against near-neighbour siblings such as cao_bim_contreventement, cao_bim_tirants or cao_bim_charpente, which also deal with bracing members.

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 clause 'Appelez quand vous devez VERIFIER LES CONTREFICHES' gives an explicit trigger condition, and 'Eurocode 5 et CCTP signes priment' tells the agent the output is advisory rather than authoritative. There is no mention of alternatives or of when not to call it, so routing between this and adjacent structural-check tools remains implicit.

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