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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: numeric acceptance thresholds and the caveat 'Indicatif — selection des diffuseurs signee prime', which tells the agent the result is advisory. It does not describe the return payload, but annotations carry the safety profile.

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?

Single dense paragraph is front-loaded with the call condition and check criteria. Minor waste: the scene field list repeats the schema, and 'Lecture seule' repeats the annotation.

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 verification tool with one nested parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, criteria, data shape, and the indicative caveat. It does not state what the verification returns (e.g., pass/fail per criterion), leaving a small 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the scene schema already documents the bouches fields. The description repeats the same field list without adding meaning (e.g., units or optionality). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 ('VERIFIER LA DIFFUSION D'AIR') and resource (MEP air diffusion), then enumerates four explicit checks with thresholds (DI-DEBIT, DI-PORTEE, DI-NR, DI-VITESSE). This clearly distinguishes it from generic MEP siblings like cao_bim_mep or cao_bim_cvc.

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 a clear trigger condition. It does not name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., dimensioning vs. verification), so it falls short of explicit when-not guidance.

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