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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the check is 'Indicatif' and authoritative signed CCTP and sanitary regulations take precedence, which tells the agent the result is advisory rather than definitive.

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 description is front-loaded with the call condition and is compact. The 'scene : office {...}' clause largely duplicates the schema description, which slightly reduces conciseness, but the overall structure is efficient.

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?

The definition covers what is verified, the input scene shape, the read-only nature, and the important caveat that results are indicative. With no output schema, it does not explain the shape of the verification result, which is a minor gap for an agent interpreting the response.

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?

There is only one parameter, and schema_description_coverage is 100%; the schema itself defines scene as 'office {evier, refrigeration, ventilation, revetement}'. The description repeats this structure but does not add further syntax or semantic detail, so the high schema coverage yields a baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'VERIFIER L'OFFICE / CAFETERIA (tertiaire)' and enumerates the checked elements (sink, refrigeration, ventilation, finishes). It is clearly not a generic BIM tool, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as cuisine_pro or salle_commune to reinforce differentiation.

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. The caveat that the result is indicative and signed CCTP/sanitary rules prevail adds important usage context, but no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative is provided.

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