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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real contextual behavior beyond annotations by stating the check is indicative and that normative documents prevail; it only redundantly restates 'Lecture seule' and does not describe the return format.

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 and front-loads the call condition. There is some redundancy in restating the scene fields already covered by the schema and in repeating read-only status already provided by annotations.

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 parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what is checked and the important caveat that results are indicative. It could say more about the expected response format, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents the single scene object and its nested fields. The description mostly restates that structure and adds SA-* labels, but does not add syntax, constraints, or deeper meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb, VERIFIER, and a precise resource, SABLIERE, then enumerates four sub-checks (section, fixation, appuis, protection). It does not explicitly distinguish this from other element-check siblings such as pannes, but the resource name is specific enough for selection.

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 clearly says to call it when verifying the wall plate and adds a useful caveat that the result is indicative and Eurocode 5 / signed CCTP take precedence. It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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