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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, so 'Lecture seule' adds little beyond restating them. However, the qualifier 'Indicatif — methodologie validee par l'entreprise signee prime' is genuine behavioral context the agent needs: it warns that findings may conflict with a contractor-validated method statement. What is missing is any hint of the result shape (verdict vs. findings list).

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 trigger condition in caps, then the checked sub-domains, then the parameter, then the caveat — a sensible order with little filler. There is mild redundancy in listing the four sub-domains twice (as ME- codes and again as the scene object structure).

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 check tool with no output schema, the description explains what is inspected and its indicative status, which is the important part. It never suggests what the call returns (a pass/fail, a list of gaps, a rendered scene?), leaving the agent to call blind on the output side.

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's nested structure is already documented in the schema. The description's restatement 'scene : methodologie {mode_operatoire, phasage, controles, securite}' largely duplicates structured data, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb ('VERIFIER') and resource ('METHODOLOGIE D'EXECUTION') and enumerates the four sub-domains checked (mode operatoire, phasage, controles, securite) with their ME- codes. An agent can tell exactly what the tool inspects. It does not explicitly contrast itself with near-neighbours like cao_bim_securite_chantier or cao_bim_planning_cpm, so it stops 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 LA METHODOLOGIE D'EXECUTION (preparation des travaux)' gives an explicit trigger condition. The caveat 'methodologie validee par l'entreprise signee prime' usefully tells the agent that this output is not the authoritative source. No explicit when-not or named alternative tool is given, though.

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