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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that lifting a hold point remains a signed HUMAN act and that the tool itself is 'Lecture seule', which is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. It also enumerates the four checks it performs (PA-DECLARATION, PA-LEVEE, PA-SIGNATURE, PA-ORDRE), giving real behavioral insight. No return-format detail, but annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 condition is front-loaded and every clause carries operational content (checks, action meanings, scene structure). It is dense with parenthetical rule codes and slightly run-on, but no sentence is wasted.

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 carries the return semantics by naming the four verification codes, so an agent knows what to expect from 'verifier'. The readOnly/openWorld annotations cover the rest; only minor gaps such as default behavior when 'scene' is omitted remain.

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 only 33%, but the description compensates: it explains the scene shape (lots, lots_termines, points_arret with statut leve|en_attente and signature {nom, qualite}) and gives the meaning of each action enum value. Only the top-level 'lots' array is left to the 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 and resource: manage site hold points (PA) and critical points (PC) per lot, with the action modes plan and verifier spelled out. The list of concrete lot types (implantation, fondations, ferraillage, coulage, etancheite, consuel) makes the resource unmistakable within a very large cao_bim_* family.

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?

Opens with an explicit call condition: 'Appelez quand vous devez GERER LES POINTS D'ARRET DU CHANTIER (EXE / PAQ)', and clarifies the action choice ('plan' = expected points per lot, 'verifier' = default). It does not name a sibling tool as an alternative or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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