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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds a genuinely useful caveat beyond them: 'Indicatif — RPC UE 305/2011 et DoP signee priment', i.e. the tool's answer is indicative and the signed DoP/legal text is authoritative. The trailing 'Lecture seule' is redundancy, and nothing is said about what the check returns, which caps it at 4.

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?

One front-loaded sentence anchored on the trigger, then the scene shape, then the legal caveat — no filler. It is dense and code-heavy (DP-PRODUIT, DP-NORME), which costs a little readability but nothing is wasted.

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, and the description never says what a 'check' yields (pass/fail, missing fields, per-field status). For a verification tool with a nested one-parameter input and closed-world annotations, that return-value gap is the one thing an agent still cannot infer.

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 'scene' parameter already documents the declaration_performances object with the same field list. The description adds only the 'dop' alias and the same field enumeration, so it neither compensates for anything missing nor adds much over the schema — baseline 3.

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 LA DECLARATION DE PERFORMANCES (DoP / marquage CE)' and enumerates the four verification axes (DP-PRODUIT, DP-NORME, DP-PERFORMANCES, DP-REFERENCE). It is clearly a DoP/CE-conformity check, but it never differentiates itself from nearby siblings such as cao_bim_certification, cao_bim_avis_technique or cao_bim_fiche_fabricant.

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 an explicit trigger condition for invocation. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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