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" merely restates structured data. The genuinely additive part is "Indicatif — Eurocode 2 et CCTP signes priment", which tells the agent results are non-authoritative and must be framed as indicative; however nothing is said about the shape of findings or behavior on a missing/empty scene.

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 in the first clause, and the check codes are compactly listed. Minor redundancy in "armatures/ferraillage" and "coffrage/betonnage", but no wasted sentences.

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 no output schema, the description should hint at what comes back; it lists the four verification categories but never says whether the tool returns pass/fail findings, a list of anomalies, or a report per category. Given a single optional nested parameter this is workable but leaves a real gap.

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` parameter is already documented as "Scene CAO : nervures {section, armatures, appuis, coffrage}". The description restates the same substructure without adding format, expected units or validation expectations, 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?

States a specific verb (VERIFIER) and a specific resource (nervures beton), then enumerates the four checked aspects with explicit codes (NE-SECTION, NE-ARMATURES, NE-APPUIS, NE-COFFRAGE). This makes the scope clearly narrower than siblings like cao_bim_ferraillage_elements or cao_bim_poutres_beton, though it never names an alternative sibling 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 LES NERVURES beton" gives an explicit trigger condition for invocation. There is no statement about when NOT to use it, no prerequisites, and no named alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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