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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and 'Lecture seule' merely restates them. The one piece of added context is the 'indicatif' caveat that a signed GTB spec prevails, which genuinely qualifies the result's authority, but no information is given on what the check returns or its failure modes.

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?

Purpose and trigger are front-loaded, which is good, but the GT- enumeration in the first sentence and the scene key list in the second describe the same four sub-domains twice, duplicating content already in the schema.

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 check with no output schema, the description says what is checked but not what comes back (verdict, gap report, conformity score) nor whether it requires an existing scene with GTB objects. Adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the result shape.

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% and the single nested `scene` object is fully documented, so the description listing the same keys (supervision, capteurs_co2, ...) adds no meaning beyond the schema. 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource (VERIFIER LA GTB) and enumerates the four sub-domains being checked (supervision, CO2/presence sensors, zoning, sub-metering), scoping it clearly against the ~250 siblings. It does not name a near-alternative such as cao_bim_suivi_energetique or cao_bim_mep, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 LA GTB' gives an explicit trigger context, and 'Indicatif — cahier des charges GTB signe prime' signals the check is preliminary. There is no when-not guidance and no named alternative for full energy monitoring or MEP coordination.

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