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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Lecture seule' adds nothing. The genuine addition is the caveat that the check is 'indicatif' and is superseded by a signed note de calcul de plancher, which tells the agent not to treat findings as authoritative. Missing any note on output format or failure reporting.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: trigger first, then the four check codes, then the scene shape, then the indicative caveat. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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-object parameter with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description says what is verified and how much to trust the result. It does not indicate what the result looks like (pass/fail per criterion, violation list), which is the one remaining gap for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%; the schema description 'Scene CAO : predalles {dalle, treillis, appuis, etaiement}' is repeated verbatim in the description. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already documents the parameter and the description adds no extra syntax or structure detail.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource in caps ('VERIFIER LES PREDALLES') and enumerates exactly what is checked: topping slab >= 4 cm (PD-DALLE), welded mesh (PD-TREILLIS), supports (PD-APPUIS), propping (PD-ETAIEMENT). This lets an agent separate it from adjacent siblings like cao_bim_etaiement, cao_bim_planchers or cao_bim_prefabrication.

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...' gives an explicit trigger condition. It also warns that results are indicative and a signed slab calculation note prevails, which shapes how the agent should act on the output. No explicit when-not or 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.