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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, and the description reinforces them ("Lecture seule") while adding genuinely new behavioral context: the exact acceptance thresholds and the caveat that only a signed G2 study and EC7 note prevail. It stops short of describing what the check returns (pass/fail per rule, defects list), which matters since there is no output schema.

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-loads the trigger ("Appelez quand...") and packs the thresholds efficiently with tagged rule codes. Slightly diluted by restating the pieux field list that the schema already provides, so not maximally economical.

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 single-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description supplies the decision rules, the scope limitation, and the read-only status — enough to invoke it correctly. The only gap is that the shape of the verdict returned per pile is left implicit.

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 nested pieux fields are listed in the schema, so the schema baseline is met. The description goes further by mapping fields to their checks (diametre_mm >= 400, charge_kn vs capacite_kn, fiche_m >= 5, ancrage declared), giving semantics the schema alone does not express.

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 (VERIFIER) plus the exact resource (fondations profondes / pieux, EC7) and enumerates the four rule codes it evaluates (PI-DIAMETRE, PI-CHARGE, PI-FICHE, PI-ANCRAGE). This lets an agent separate it from neighbours like cao_bim_geotechnique or cao_bim_soutenement without opening the 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?

"Appelez quand vous devez VERIFIER LES FONDATIONS PROFONDES" gives a clear triggering condition, and the EC7 reference plus the indicative/signed-study caveat frames the context of use. It does not, however, name which sibling to prefer when the task is geotechnical rather than pile-verification, so there are no explicit exclusions.

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