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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false, and the description ('Lecture seule', 'Indicatif') confirms and reinforces that this is a non-authoritative read-only check. It goes beyond annotations by disclosing the actual rule thresholds (classe 1-6 per NF EN 12810, height <= 24 m, tie-back beyond 4 m) and the EC-* rule identifiers, which the agent needs to interpret results.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, then rules, then payload shape, then the caveat — a sensible order. It is dense (all-caps, rule codes, parentheticals) but every clause carries information; only the redundant 'Lecture seule' restates annotations.

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 single-parameter, read-only, indicative check tool with no output schema, the description supplies the rule set, the field mapping and the caveat that signed documents prevail. It does not describe the shape of the findings returned, a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema description already lists the nested echafaudages fields, so baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning by tying fields to rules — e.g. that a height above 24 m is acceptable only with a declared note_calcul (EC-HAUTEUR) and that ancrage matters beyond 4 m — which the schema alone does not explain.

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 LES ECHAFAUDAGES DE PIED) plus the domain (chantier / EXE) and enumerates the four checks performed (classe de charge, hauteur, ancrage, protections collectives). This clearly separates it from siblings such as cao_bim_garde_corps or cao_bim_securite_chantier, which cover adjacent but different scopes.

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 LES ECHAFAUDAGES DE PIED' gives an explicit triggering condition, and the closing caveat that a signed note de calcul and reception take precedence tells the agent when the output is insufficient. No sibling is named as an alternative, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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