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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so "Lecture seule" is largely redundant, but the description adds genuinely new context: the result is indicative only and signed CCTP documents and low-current standards take precedence. That caveat materially changes how an agent should report the findings and is not derivable from the annotations.

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 imperative call-to-action is front-loaded, followed by the code list and the important caveat, with no filler sentences. The only waste is the near-verbatim repetition of the scene object shape already present 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, single-parameter inspection tool with no output schema, the definition supplies the trigger, the four audit axes, the object shape, and the caveat about normative precedence. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret its authority.

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?

There is a single parameter whose schema description already spells out the object as interphone {emplacement, alimentation, portier, cablage}, at 100% schema coverage. The description repeats that same shape rather than adding new meaning such as how missing sub-keys are treated or what a partial scene yields, so it earns the baseline and no more.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("VERIFIER L'INTERPHONE / visiophone") and enumerates the four checked dimensions with their codes (IP-EMPLACEMENT, IP-ALIMENTATION, IP-PORTIER, IP-CABLAGE). It is unambiguous within the large cao_bim_* family, though it never names the nearest siblings (cao_bim_courants_faibles, cao_bim_intrusion) to draw the boundary explicitly.

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 L'INTERPHONE" gives a clear trigger condition, and the closing "Indicatif — CCTP et normes courants faibles signes priment" tells the agent how much weight to give the result. It offers no explicit when-not-to-use case or named alternative, 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.