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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false), so 'Lecture seule' is largely redundant. The genuinely additive disclosure is 'Indicatif — NF EN 115 et CCTP signes priment', which tells the agent the findings are indicative and that normative/CCTP documents override them — a real reliability caveat beyond the annotations. It still says nothing about the shape or granularity of the returned findings.

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 clause is front-loaded and the four check domains are compactly enumerated. There is some waste: the sentence 'scene : escalator {structure, motorisation, securite, entretien}' duplicates the schema description verbatim, and 'Lecture seule' restates the annotation.

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 check tool with no output schema, the description covers what is inspected, the domain reference (NF EN 115), the precedence of normative documents, and the read-only nature. The main remaining gap is that the agent cannot anticipate whether the response is per-category verdicts, a findings list, or a compliance score.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by mapping each sub-key of the scene object to a check domain with a concrete gloss (structure/marches, motorisation/commande, securite/arret d'urgence, entretien/controle). That clarifies what the nested object is expected to carry rather than merely repeating the schema text.

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 named resource ('escalator / tapis roulant') and four enumerated check domains (ES-STRUCTURE, ES-MOTORISATION, ES-SECURITE, ES-ENTRETIEN). It implicitly separates itself from the stair tools (cao_bim_escaliers, cao_bim_escalier_interieur) by naming the escalator/moving walk, but never says so explicitly.

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 a clear triggering condition for the agent. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives, despite numerous adjacent siblings (cao_bim_ascenseur, cao_bim_escaliers, cao_bim_structure_scene), so the routing guidance stops short of 5.

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