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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Lecture seule'. More importantly, it adds the non-obvious behavioral caveat that the check is indicative and that formal ATE/ETA and signed CCTP documents prevail, which is valuable beyond the annotations. It still does not describe the return format.

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 description is compact and front-loads the usage trigger before listing the checked fields and the indicative limitation. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter read-only checker, with no unnecessary filler.

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 verification tool with no output schema, the description covers what is checked and the important 'indicative' caveat. However, it does not explain what a verification result looks like, whether findings are returned as diagnostics, or how missing/empty scene data is handled.

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 schema already documents the single nested 'scene' object as 'etriers {type, fixation, capacite, protection}'. The description repeats that structure but adds no extra syntax, constraints, or edge-case semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verification action on a specific building element: joist hangers / floor joist suspentes. It also enumerates the exact checked dimensions (type, fixing, capacity, protection), so an agent can distinguish this from generic or other component-level cao_bim checkers.

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?

The opening 'Appelez quand vous devez VERIFIER...' gives an explicit trigger for when to use the tool. The caveat that ATE/ETA and signed CCTP take precedence adds useful context, but the description does not name alternative tools or clarify exclusion cases.

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