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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description repeats 'Lecture seule'. It adds useful behavioral notes such as 'Indicatif' and the threshold override mechanism, but does not describe the response shape or computation limitations beyond that. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

It is a single dense but front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause relates to the dashboard metrics or thresholds. It could be more scannable with structure, but it is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 two-parameter computation tool with no output schema, the description lists the output metrics and threshold defaults, and states the result is indicative. It is nearly complete; only the exact response format is not specified.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by adding default threshold values (CES <= 0.40, compacité <= 1.2, vitrage between 1/6 and 30%, carbone <= 800) and explaining that 'seuils' overrides them, details not present in the schema descriptions.

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 clearly identifies the resource as the design dashboard of a scene and enumerates the metrics it consolidates (SHAB, emprise, CES, compacité, vitrage, coût/m2, carbone). It is distinguishable from most siblings by this specific dashboard focus, though it does not explicitly contrast with metrics-adjacent tools like cao_bim_energie or cao_bim_acv.

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?

The opening phrase explicitly states when to call: 'Appelez quand vous voulez le TABLEAU DE BORD DE CONCEPTION d'une scene'. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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