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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Lecture seule' note is largely redundant. The description does add genuinely non-structured context: results are indicative and PLU prescriptions take precedence, which tells the agent not to treat output as normative.

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?

A single dense paragraph with the trigger condition front-loaded and the caveat at the end, which is good ordering. It is long but nearly every clause carries a threshold or field spec; the only slight waste is repeating 'Lecture seule' already covered by annotations.

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 still conveys what is evaluated and the reference thresholds, and the 'indicatif' caveat sets expectations about result reliability. For a single nested-object parameter it is nearly complete, though it does not say what the response contains or how failures are reported.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes further by embedding the acceptance thresholds per field (2,30 x 5,00 m standard, 3,30 x 5,00 PMR, 5,50/3,50 m aisles, <= 1 place per 25 m2) and enumerating the scene sub-fields including the optional 'pmr?' flag and 'sens' values. This adds interpretive meaning beyond the raw schema.

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+resource ('vérifier un PARKING') and enumerates the exact checks performed: stall dimensions, aisle widths, mechanical ventilation/CO detection, and stalls-per-area ratio. An agent can distinguish it from nearby siblings like cao_bim_accessibilite or cao_bim_vrd without opening any schema.

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?

The opening 'Appelez quand vous devez vérifier un PARKING' gives a clear trigger condition, and the closing caveat 'Indicatif — prescriptions PLU priment' sets the authority boundary. It stops short of naming alternative tools or stating when NOT to use it, so it is clear but not fully routed.

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