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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and "Lecture seule" adds nothing. Beyond that the description genuinely adds context: the PDF carries an empty physical signature block (the act of signing stays human) and an engineer's signature is required for any contractual value — the key non-obvious constraint for a document described as "ready to sign".

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 trigger condition is front-loaded, then content, then format behavior, then the signing constraint — a sensible order for one dense paragraph. Some clauses ("La signature d'un ingénieur est requise pour toute valeur contractuelle" alongside the empty-block explanation) overlap, and "Lecture seule" restates annotations, but overall there is little waste.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing the return artifact, and it does: it lists the note's sections and distinguishes json/html/pdf payloads. For a 5-parameter tool with nested objects the main remaining hole is the role of phase and scene, which leaves an agent guessing when assembling a call.

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?

With schema coverage at 40%, three parameters (phase, scene, terrain) carry no documentation anywhere. The description compensates partially: it maps format values to concrete outcomes and clarifies the signature parameter's authorization meaning, while the enumerated note sections hint at what scene/terrain feed in. But phase and the nested object structure remain unexplained, so it does not close the coverage gap.

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?

Uses a specific verb (générer) with a specific resource (note de calcul synthétique d'un projet BIM) and enumerates what the note aggregates: terrain regulation, BIM bilan (LOD/LOI, conformité), signature status and indicative limits. This distinguishes it from the many point-content siblings (cao_bim_lod, cao_bim_conformite, cao_bim_terrain), which supply inputs rather than the consolidated signable note.

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 générer..." explicitly states the triggering condition, and the format clause tells the agent which variant to pick for printable vs. HTML vs. machine-readable output. It stops short of naming an alternative or exclusion, so an agent must infer that the sibling tools are inputs rather than substitutes.

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