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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Lecture seule' simply restates that. The added value is the caveat that results are 'Indicatif — note de calcul et CCTP signes priment', which tells the agent the output is advisory and must be superseded by signed documents — a genuinely useful behavioral disclosure not present in structured fields.

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 clause is front-loaded and the sub-check codes are compactly enumerated. The parenthetical '(structures d'ombrage)' and the repeated 'scene : pergolas {...}' fragment are slightly redundant with the schema, but overall the text is dense and earns most of its space.

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 read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description never indicates what comes back — a findings list, per-check verdicts, pass/fail per PE-code — nor whether a scene must already contain pergolas. The 'indicatif' framing hints at a report but the agent cannot anticipate the result shape.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single nested 'scene' parameter is already documented as 'pergolas {structure, fixation, ombrage, charges}'. The description repeats that same shape verbatim without adding expected value formats, units, or what happens if the pergola node is absent.

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 names a specific verb ('VERIFIER LES PERGOLAS') and enumerates the sub-checks it performs (PE-STRUCTURE, PE-FIXATION, PE-OMBRAGE, PE-CHARGES), which is far more specific than the generic 'check a scene' framing. It never distinguishes itself from adjacent siblings such as cao_bim_auvents, cao_bim_carports or cao_bim_protection_solaire_fixe, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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 PERGOLAS' gives an explicit trigger condition. There is no statement of when-not to use it and no named alternative tool, so the routing guidance stops short of the top score.

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