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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Lecture seule' adds nothing, but 'Indicatif — reglement de copropriete et CCTP signes priment' is genuine, non-annotated behavioral context: results are advisory and superseded by authoritative documents. It does not describe how findings are reported per criterion, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the call condition and the resource, then the criteria, then the caveat — good ordering with no filler. The telegraphic all-caps/code style is dense but not wasteful; a short clause on the return shape could have replaced none of it.

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?

With one nested-object parameter and no output schema, the description should indicate what a verification yields (per-criterion findings? pass/fail? remediation notes?). It covers what is inspected and that results are indicative, but leaves the response shape entirely implicit.

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 schema already spells out 'Scene CAO : local_compost {emplacement, aeration, acces, protection}', which the description merely repeats. The only added value is the criterion-to-code mapping (LC-*), which is useful but marginal, so 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?

Names a specific verb + resource ('VERIFIER LE LOCAL COMPOST / aire de compostage') and enumerates the four checked criteria with stable codes (LC-EMPLACEMENT, LC-AERATION, LC-ACCES, LC-PROTECTION). This clearly separates it from the many adjacent local-type siblings such as cao_bim_local_poubelles, cao_bim_local_deux_roues or cao_bim_local_entretien.

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 LE LOCAL COMPOST' gives an explicit triggering condition, which is more than most siblings offer. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer a generic conformity/CCTP check instead), so it is clear but not complete routing guidance.

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