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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false, so 'Lecture seule' is redundant. The valuable addition is the 'Indicatif — Code du travail et marche signes priment' disclaimer, which tells the agent results are advisory and must be cross-checked against legal sources — genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Trigger condition is front-loaded, sub-checks are compactly enumerated, and the caveat closes it out. Minor waste: the 'scene : ppsps {…}' clause restates the enumeration just given and the schema.

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?

A read-only, 1-param, annotated check tool with no output schema. The description is essentially complete for invoking it, but it never indicates what the verification returns (findings list? pass/fail per axis?), which matters for an agent interpreting results.

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 single nested parameter already documents ppsps {analyse, mesures, intervenants, affichage}; the description repeats this list without adding format, expected keys, or constraints. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does all the work.

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) and resource (PPSPS) and enumerates the four sub-checks it covers (analyse, mesures, intervenants, affichage). An agent can tell what it does, though it does not name a sibling (e.g. cao_bim_registre_securite or cao_bim_securite_chantier) as the alternative.

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 LE PPSPS' gives an explicit trigger condition, and the caveat that the Code du travail and signed contracts prevail tells the agent when NOT to treat the result as authoritative. No named alternative tool, so not a 5.

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