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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the important caveat that results are 'Indicatif — DTU 40 signe prime', which tells the agent how much weight to give the output. It repeats 'Lecture seule' already implied by annotations and says nothing about response shape or severity levels.

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?

Front-loads the calling condition, then the check codes, then the input shape and the 'indicatif' caveat. Dense with rule codes but every clause carries information; a slightly awkward single-sentence block but no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the four check identifiers that will drive findings and disclosing the advisory nature of the result. An agent knows what to send and roughly what to expect; only the exact return structure is left open.

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 single nested parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes further by spelling out the accepted material values (tuile|ardoise|zinc|bac_acier) and per-material minimum slopes, information the schema does not carry.

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 TOITURES EN PENTE') and enumerates the four sub-checks it performs (CO-PENTE, CO-ECRAN, CO-LITEAUX, CO-VENTILATION). It is distinguishable from the many sibling cao_bim_* tools by domain, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with near neighbors like cao_bim_toiture_terrasse or cao_bim_charpente.

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?

Gives an explicit call trigger ('Appelez quand vous devez VERIFIER LES TOITURES EN PENTE (DTU 40)'), which is clear enough to select the tool. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it or naming alternatives for flat roofs versus pitched roofs.

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