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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint=false, so 'Lecture seule' is largely redundant; however, 'Indicatif — CCTP signe prime' adds a real caveat about the authority of the result that no structured field conveys. Return format remains unspecified, but that is a minor gap for a read-only check.

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 call trigger is front-loaded, then the criteria list, then the authority caveat and read-only note. It is compact, but the four sub-fields are effectively stated twice (criteria list and 'scene : dressing {...}'), a small redundancy.

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 one-parameter, read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description supplies the trigger, the four inspected dimensions, and the authority caveat — everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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 is already documented as a dressing object with the four sub-keys; the description restates exactly that structure without adding format, units, or validation detail. Baseline 3 applies where 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) and a precisely named resource (DRESSING / penderie), and enumerates the four checked criteria (ventilation, eclairage, rangement, surface). The resource is inherently distinct from siblings like cao_bim_chambre or cao_bim_buanderie, though no sibling is named explicitly as an alternative.

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 LE DRESSING' gives an explicit trigger condition, and 'Indicatif — CCTP signe prime' warns that results are non-authoritative relative to a signed CCTP. No competing tool is named, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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