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' is partly redundant. What the description genuinely adds is the indicative/non-normative nature of the result and the precedence of the 2014/33/UE directive and signed inspection reports — a caveat the agent cannot infer from the schema or annotations.

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 invocation trigger is front-loaded and the rest is a tight enumeration of the four check families plus the disclaimer. Minor waste: the scene structure is stated twice in one sentence (coded version, then plain version), which the schema already carries.

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 single-parameter, read-only check tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers what is verified, what input structure is expected, and the authority disclaimer. The one remaining gap is that with no output schema, the description never indicates what a verdict looks like (conformity flags per family?), which would help the agent interpret results.

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 'monte_charges {charge, dimension, securite, maintenance}'. The description repeats that exact structure verbatim, adding no syntax, expected units, or required vs optional sub-keys. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the 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 opens with an explicit trigger and a concrete verb+resource pair ('VERIFIER LES MONTE-CHARGES / ascenseurs de service'), then enumerates the four check families with their codes (MC-CHARGE, MC-DIMENSION, MC-SECURITE, MC-MAINTENANCE). This makes it distinguishable from the close sibling cao_bim_ascenseur (passenger lifts) by resource, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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...' states the invocation condition clearly and the scope is bounded to goods-lift verification. There is no explicit 'do not use for X, use Y instead' routing, but the 'Indicatif — directive 2014/33/UE et PV de controle signes priment' caveat tells the agent when this output is not authoritative.

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