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 genuinely useful context beyond that: "Indicatif — DTU plomberie et CCTP signes priment," telling the agent the result is advisory and normative documents take precedence. "Lecture seule" merely restates the annotation, but the caveat earns credit.

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 trigger is front-loaded ("Appelez quand...") and the checklist and caveat follow in one compact block with no filler. It is dense with internal codes but appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.

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 checker with annotated safety profile, the description covers what the tool targets and its advisory nature. It does not describe what the check returns or how findings are structured, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, leaving interpretation 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 description coverage is 100% and the single nested 'scene' object is already documented; the description only repeats "douche {receveur, robinetterie, evacuation, accessibilite}" without adding format, required sub-fields, or expected value types. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 DOUCHE) and resource (receveur/douche) and enumerates the four checklist axes (receveur/etancheite, robinetterie, evacuation, accessibilite). It is clearly a shower-specific check distinct from generic siblings like cao_bim_salle_bain or cao_bim_baignoire. The cryptic DO-XXX codes are never explained, slightly blurring the exact scope.

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 LA DOUCHE" gives an invocation trigger, which is more than nothing, but it provides no when-not conditions and does not name alternatives such as cao_bim_salle_bain or cao_bim_accessibilite. Usage is implied rather than fully routed.

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