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

The annotations already establish readOnly=true and destructive=false, so the description correctly reinforces 'Lecture seule' without contradicting them. It adds useful behavioral context by warning that results are indicative and that signed contracts/CCTP take precedence.

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-loaded with the trigger condition, followed by stakeholder categories, input structure, and the key 'indicatif' caveat. Every sentence contributes useful information without padding.

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, one-parameter indicative lookup, the description covers the purpose, input shape, and reliability caveat. It does not describe the exact return structure, and no output schema is available, but the tool's scope is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 'scene' parameter is already documented as an object containing intervenants {moa, moe, entreprises, visas}. The description repeats that structure but adds no additional syntax or formatting guidance, so the schema does the substantive work.

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 gives a clear verb and resource: 'VERIFIER LES INTERVENANTS du projet', then enumerates the exact stakeholder categories (MOA, MOE/BET, entreprises, visas). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as cao_bim_lots or cao_bim_visa_lots, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly says when to call it ('Appelez quand vous devez VERIFIER LES INTERVENANTS'), which gives the agent a clear usage condition. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use it, so it falls short of full sibling routing guidance.

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