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

The readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations already establish that this is a safe read operation. The description adds important behavioral context by stating that results are indicative and that Eurocode 3 and signed CCTP documents take precedence. It still does not describe the return values.

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 guidance is front-loaded with 'Appelez quand...' and covers the check categories compactly. It is somewhat dense with abbreviations and repeats the four scene fields, but no sentence is clearly wasteful.

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?

The description covers when to use the tool, the four checks, the parameter shape, and the indicative limitation. However, with no output schema and no explanation of what the check returns (e.g., statuses per category), an agent lacks information about the result format.

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%, so the schema already documents the single nested 'scene' parameter. The description restates the same shape ('jarrets {section, fixation, position, protection}') but adds little syntax or validation detail beyond the schema baseline.

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 specific verb and object: 'VERIFIER LES JARRETS', and enumerates the four checked aspects with codes (JA-SECTION, JA-FIXATION, JA-POSITION, JA-PROTECTION). This makes the tool clearly identifiable among the large set of cao_bim_* siblings.

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 to call the tool when haunches must be checked, and lists the exact checks covered. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it provides clear context but no exclusions.

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