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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint, so 'Lecture seule' adds little, but the description contributes genuinely new behavioral context: results are 'Indicatif' and a signed CCTP tertiaire takes precedence ('signe prime'). That warns the agent the output is non-authoritative — something the annotations do not convey.

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, then the domain codes, then the scene shape, then the caveat — a dense, well-ordered sentence chain. Slight redundancy between the title's enumeration and the body's enumeration, but nothing is padded.

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 one-parameter, nested-object, read-only check with no output schema, the description covers what is checked, what the input looks like, and that the verdict is indicative. Only the return shape and per-domain result granularity remain unstated, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 nested 'scene' property is already documented identically in the schema, so the description's 'scene : open_space {eclairage, acoustique, ventilation, cablage}' merely repeats it. No detail is added about expected value format or shape for the nested keys, 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 action ('VERIFIER L'OPEN SPACE (tertiaire)') and enumerates the four checked domains with codes (OS-ECLAIRAGE, OS-ACOUSTIQUE, OS-VENTILATION, OS-CABLAGE), which lets an agent tell it apart from generic siblings like cao_bim_office or cao_bim_eclairage. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those narrower siblings.

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...' gives an explicit invocation trigger rather than leaving usage implied. There is no when-not guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative (e.g. cao_bim_acoustique or cao_bim_eclairage for single-domain checks), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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