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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint and openWorldHint, so 'Lecture seule' is largely redundant. The description nevertheless adds real behavioral context: results are indicative only, and signed fiche technique / calepinage take precedence. It does not describe what the check returns.

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 call trigger, then the checked components, then the indicative caveat. The only waste is the 'scene : planchers_techniques {verins, dalles, hauteur, acces}' sentence, which duplicates the input schema wording.

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 nested optional parameter, no output schema and rich read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, scope and the indicative disclaimer. A note on the shape of the check result would close the remaining gap, since 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 schema's scene description is essentially identical to the description's scene line. The description adds no syntax or format information beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

The description states a specific verb (VERIFIER) and resource (planchers techniques / faux planchers sureleves), and enumerates the four checked components with their codes (PT-VERINS, PT-DALLES, PT-HAUTEUR, PT-ACCES). This clearly distinguishes it from neighboring tools such as cao_bim_planchers or cao_bim_faux_plafonds.

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?

It says explicitly when to call ('Appelez quand vous devez VERIFIER...') and adds an authority caveat (signed technical sheets and layout drawings prevail). It does not name alternative tools or state exclusions, which would matter given the very dense cao_bim_* sibling set.

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