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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Lecture seule' adds nothing. The one genuine addition is the disclaimer 'Indicatif — réglementation et CCTP signés priment', which tells the agent to treat the output as a heuristic rather than a compliance verdict. Beyond that the description is silent on what the check returns and what happens when the scene lacks the component.

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 and the four checkpoints are compactly enumerated with matching codes, so an agent can skim it in one pass. Slightly dense with parenthetical codes, but no wasted sentences.

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 one optional nested parameter, no output schema and safety annotations, the description supplies what an agent needs to pick the tool and pass the scene. The gap is the return behaviour: it never says whether the call yields findings, a pass/fail verdict or a list of non-conformities.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains the nested scene object. The description re-states the same four sub-keys {emplacement, alimentation, signalisation, entretien}, which reinforces but does not extend the schema; no expected value format or granularity is given.

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 (VERIFIER) and a specific resource (douche de sécurité / rince-œil) and enumerates the four checkpoints with their DS- codes, so the agent knows exactly what is inspected. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the neighbouring cao_bim_douche (ordinary shower) or cao_bim_sanitaires_communs tools, leaving the boundary implicit.

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 call trigger, which is stronger than most definitions in this family. There is no exclusion rule (e.g. 'not for design/sizing of the shower' or 'use cao_bim_douche for standard showers') and no alternative is named.

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