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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and "Lecture seule" merely restates that. The genuinely added context is the "indicatif" disclaimer, which warns the agent the verdict is non-binding; nothing is said about output shape, severity levels, or whether failures are returned as findings or errors.

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 ("Appelez quand..."), then the acceptance criteria, then the input shape, then the disclaimer — a logical progression with no filler. Density is high and abbreviations are heavy, but every clause carries rule content.

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 nested-object parameter with no output schema and no required fields, the description covers what is checked, the thresholds, and the field layout. The only real gap is the return format, though the GC-* codes imply results are labelled per criterion.

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 goes beyond the schema by spelling out the admissibility domain of `remplissage` (plein|verre|barreaudage|grille) and the four measured criteria (hauteur_mm, espacement_mm, ancrage, resistance_kn_m) even though the schema has no enums.

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 LES GARDE-CORPS") tied to a named standard (NF P01-012) and enumerates the four checks it performs with their codes, so the agent can distinguish it from the many sibling cao_bim_* verification 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 VERIFIER LES GARDE-CORPS" gives an explicit trigger condition, and the closing caveat ("Indicatif — note de calcul NF P01-012 signee prime") tells the agent not to treat the result as authoritative. No sibling alternative is named, which keeps it below 5 in a family this large.

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