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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful caveat that results are indicative and that Eurocode 3 and signed CCTP take precedence, but it does not describe the check output or any limitations on the verification itself.

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 use case, the four checked criteria, and the indicative caveat. The 'scene : goussets {section, fixation, position, protection}' clause largely repeats the schema, which is minor redundancy.

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 read-only, single-parameter check tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficiently complete: it states purpose, scope, sub-criteria, and normative caveat. It lacks any indication of what the verification returns, but no output schema exists and this is a relatively simple check.

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 tool has only one parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation. The description repeats the nested scene structure almost verbatim, adding little beyond what the schema says.

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 verb and resource: verifying assembly gusset plates, with the four checked aspects explicitly named (GO-SECTION, GO-FIXATION, GO-POSITION, GO-PROTECTION). It is clear and actionable, but it does not distinguish this tool from nearby structural siblings such as cao_bim_assemblages_acier or cao_bim_platines.

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?

It gives a clear invocation condition: call it when you must verify assembly gusset plates. The four sub-checks add useful context, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for overlapping steel-connection checks.

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