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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; "Lecture seule" merely restates it. The genuinely additive disclosure is "Indicatif — schema des gaines signe prime", which tells the agent the verdict is non-normative and that a signed schema overrides it — a caveat no annotation carries.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence that moves from trigger to checked elements to input shape to caveat, with no filler. It loses a point only for redundantly restating the scene field list and "Lecture seule" that are already in the schema and annotations respectively.

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?

Input side is fully covered for a one-parameter nested tool, and the indicative nature is flagged. But for a verification tool with no output schema, the description never indicates what a check result looks like (verdict per gaine, anomalies, non-conformities), leaving the agent guessing about the return surface.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already documents scene and the gaines_techniques shape. The description repeats that same field list, adding no format, typing or defaulting guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (VERIFIER) and resource (gaines techniques verticales / MEP), then enumerates the four sub-checks with machine-readable codes (GT-RESERVATION, GT-COUPE-FEU, GT-ACCES, GT-VENTILATION). An agent can distinguish this from neighboring cao_bim_mep or cao_bim_reservations tools without opening the schema.

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..." gives an explicit positive trigger condition, which is stronger than most siblings' guidance. However, no negative case or named alternative is given, even though near-neighbors like cao_bim_reservations, cao_bim_mep and cao_bim_vmc plausibly overlap.

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