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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations: results are 'Indicatif' and 'Eurocode 3 et CCTP signes priment', so the agent knows not to treat output as normative. It also aligns with readOnlyHint via 'Lecture seule', though it does not describe the shape of the returned verification results.

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 description is compact, front-loaded with the call trigger, and structured around the four RA- check areas. Every phrase contributes either the purpose, the scene contents, or the important caveat that the check is indicative.

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?

Given one optional nested parameter, full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies purpose, sub-checks, scene structure, and the normative caveat. It does not state what the verification result contains, but no output schema exists and the core behavioral warning is present.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already states 'Scene CAO : raidisseurs {section, fixation, position, protection}'. The description repeats the same nested field list and does not add syntax, constraints, or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('VERIFIER') and resource ('RAIDISSEURS') and enumerates four check areas (RA-SECTION, RA-FIXATION, RA-POSITION, RA-PROTECTION). This makes the purpose clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from related structural siblings such as cao_bim_ossature_acier or cao_bim_assemblages_acier.

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 gives a clear triggering condition: 'Appelez quand vous devez VERIFIER LES RAIDISSEURS'. However, it offers no explicit exclusions or named alternatives for cases where stiffener checks might belong to a broader structural verification tool.

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