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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/ destructiveHint false; the description adds real behavioral context: DTU deviations are converted into numbered reserves per lot, lifting requires proof (levee_ids + acteur + date), and the reception yields one of three decisions with legal warranty consequences. Minor tension: "les reserves se levent avec preuve" reads like a mutation, mitigated only by the trailing "Lecture seule".

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 sentence that front-loads the trigger ("Appelez quand...") and then packs the outcome, the lifting mechanism and the decision taxonomy without repetition. Dense with domain vocabulary but no filler 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 report-producing tool with a nested scene object and no output schema, the description supplies the decision model and warranty logic an agent needs to interpret results. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned PV (sections, numbering of reserves), which would have closed the remaining gap.

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 goes further by grouping levee_ids + acteur + date as a coherent 'proof of lifting' triple, which explains why those parameters exist together rather than as isolated fields. It does not explain the scene object's expected contents beyond what the schema says.

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+resource in a conditional form: produce the reserves (snag list) and the PV de reception for a scene, and explains what the artifact contains (numbered reserves tied to lots, reception decision, legal guarantees). It is clearly distinct from neighbors like cao_bim_dtu, cao_bim_conformite or cao_bim_doe, though it never names a sibling to route against.

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 produire les reserves et le PV de reception d'une scene" gives an explicit trigger condition, and the following clauses sketch the workflow (lift with proof, then decide). It lacks any when-not guidance or named alternative for related tasks such as DTU compliance checks or DOE handover.

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