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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and "Lecture seule" merely restates them. The genuinely additive content is "Indicatif — Eurocode et CCTP signes priment", which discloses that results are advisory and subordinate to signed contract documents. Still missing: what the call actually reports back (findings, per-axis verdicts) — notable 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, then the axes, then the caveat — no filler. The only slight redundancy is re-stating the nested scene structure already present in the schema, but it is one short clause.

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 read-only check tool the input side is complete and the indicative caveat is valuable. But with no output schema, the description should say what comes back (per-axis findings? conformité flags?) and it only hints at this via the PO-* codes, leaving the return shape undefined.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the nested scene/potelets object. The description adds modest semantics by glossing each subfield (section→materiau, entraxe→position/espacment) and tying them to PO-* check codes, but it repeats the same field list the schema already declares.

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?

Specific verb (VERIFIER) plus resource (potelets/montants) and an enumeration of the four check axes (section, fixation, entraxe, protection). An agent knows exactly what is inspected. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very close sibling cao_bim_poteaux (posts) — the potelets vs poteaux boundary is left to inference.

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 POTELETS" gives an explicit trigger condition, and the caveat "Eurocode et CCTP signes priment" tells the agent this is a preliminary/indicative check rather than a normative one. No exclusion or alternative tool is named, so it stops 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.