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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Lecture seule' largely repeats them. The description still adds behavior beyond the structured data: the results are indicative only and signed CCTP / note de calcul prevail, which changes how an agent should present the findings.

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 phrase and the check codes, and the indicative caveat is placed where a reader will see it. Slight waste in restating 'scene : murets {...}' after the schema already says it, and in the redundant 'Lecture seule'.

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, single-parameter check with no output schema, the description covers the domain (four check families), the CAO input shape, and the reliability caveat. It does not hint at what the returned verdict/codes look like, but nothing prevents a correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'scene' property already carries the exact description 'Scene CAO : murets {fondation, hauteur, couronnement, drainage}'. The description restates that same structure verbatim, adding no syntax, format, or example beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb in caps (VERIFIER LES MURETS) and immediately scopes the resource to 'cloture / soutenement leger', which separates it from siblings like cao_bim_cloture, cao_bim_soutenement or cao_bim_semelles. The four enumerated check points (MR-FONDATION, MR-HAUTEUR, MR-COURONNEMENT, MR-DRAINAGE) make the tool's output domain unambiguous.

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...' gives an explicit trigger condition, and 'Indicatif — CCTP et note de calcul signes priment' tells the agent the results are not authoritative, which is a real usage constraint. It does not, however, name a specific alternative tool or say when NOT to call it versus the nearby wall/cloture siblings.

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