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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description only restates 'Lecture seule'. The genuinely additive disclosures are the 'Indicatif — note EC2 et plans signes priment' caveat and the fact that a 'ferrailler' action is a computation rather than a model mutation, which prevents a misread of a design-sounding action.

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 trigger and the verb, then formulas, then the action/parameter map — every clause carries content. It is a single dense run-on block with heavy parenthetical nesting, which costs some readability.

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 complex nested tool with no output schema and no required parameters, the description says what goes in and what is checked but never what comes back (pass/fail per element, margin values). The indicative disclaimer and per-element criteria are strong, but the missing response shape and the absence of required-parameter guidance leave a real gap.

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?

With only 20% schema description coverage, the description carries most of the burden: it maps action values to their parameters ('ferrailler : b_mm, d_mm, m_knm | verifier (defaut)') and spells out the nested scene fields with units and allowed type values. It lacks detail on what 'treillis', 'as_declare_mm2' or 'section_mm' expect syntactically, so not a 5.

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 LE FERRAILLAGE PAR ELEMENT') and enumerates the four element types with their EC2 criteria, so an agent knows exactly what is checked. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby siblings cao_ferraillage or cao_bim_bordereau_armatures, which keeps it below a 5.

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...' gives an explicit trigger condition, and the action enumeration ('ferrailler' vs 'verifier') tells the agent which mode to pick and with which parameters. No exclusions or named alternative tools are given, 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.