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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Lecture seule' merely restates them. The genuinely additive content is the caveat that results are indicative and that signed safety regulations/CCTP prevail — useful for judging trust in the answer. However nothing is said about what a check result looks like (pass/fail per point, findings list) or how incomplete scenes are handled.

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?

One dense but front-loaded block: the trigger comes first, then the enumerated check domains, then the caveat. Slight redundancy in repeating the scene structure already present in the schema, but no filler sentences.

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 1-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers what is checked and that output is indicative. With no output schema, an agent still cannot tell whether it receives a per-point verdict, a findings list, or free text — that gap keeps it at minimum-viable.

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 single 'scene' parameter is already documented as issue_secours {degagement, panique, signalisation, eclairage}. The description restates the same structure, adding only the mapping between each field and its IS-* check code, which is modest added meaning rather than new syntax or format guidance.

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 names a specific verb-and-resource pair ('VERIFIER L'ISSUE DE SECOURS') and enumerates the four controlled points with their codes (IS-DEGAGEMENT, IS-PANIQUE, IS-SIGNALISATION, IS-ECLAIRAGE), so the agent knows exactly what is being audited. It does not explicitly contrast itself with near-siblings such as cao_bim_eclairage_securite or cao_bim_signaletique, which keeps it short of a 5.

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'ISSUE DE SECOURS' gives a clear triggering condition, and the 'Indicatif' note warns that official safety regulations and signed CCTP override the output. No when-not-to-use case or named alternative is given, so exclusions are left implicit.

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