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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and "Lecture seule" merely restates that. The added value is the qualifier "Indicatif" plus "registre de securite signe prime": it warns the agent that the output is non-authoritative and which artifact governs in practice — a caveat not available from structured fields.

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 invocation condition and the object of the check, then the scene shape, then the caveat — a sensible ordering with little waste. Slightly dense due to parenthetical code lists, but nothing is superfluous.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description never indicates what a check returns (per-criterion verdicts? a compliance summary?). For a single-parameter, read-only tool that is a modest gap, but it leaves the agent guessing at the response shape.

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 description's "scene : eclairage_securite {baes, evacuation, autonomie_h, test}" duplicates the schema's own text almost verbatim. It adds only limited domain meaning (the 1 h autonomy rule, the ES- check codes), so the schema is doing most of 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?

Specific verb (VERIFIER) plus a precisely scoped resource (eclairage de securite: BAES, evacuation, autonomie >= 1h, test periodique), with the check codes ES-BAES/ES-EVACUATION/ES-AUTONOMIE/ES-TEST named explicitly. This clearly separates it from near-neighbours like cao_bim_eclairage, cao_bim_evacuation or cao_bim_incendie.

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 trigger condition. The clause "registre de securite signe prime" hints that the signed register (sibling cao_bim_registre_securite) takes precedence, but the routing to that alternative is only implied, not stated as an instruction.

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