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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this ("Lecture seule") and, more valuably, adds the "Indicatif" caveat that results are not authoritative versus ATE/CCTP. That reliability signal is genuinely beyond what the structured annotations convey.

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?

Front-loaded trigger followed by compact enumerated checks and the caveat, with no filler. Slightly repetitive since the code list and the struct spec overlap, but overall tight and well-ordered.

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 one-parameter, read-only verification tool with no output schema and safety covered by annotations, the description supplies the checks, the input shape, the read-only nature, and the authoritative-source disclaimer. Little an agent needs is missing.

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 single scene parameter is already documented identically to the description's struct specification. The description merely restates the schema's {tiges, profondeur, produit, controle} breakdown, adding no syntax or meaning beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (VERIFIER) and resource (SCELLEMENT/ANCRAGE) and enumerates the four checks with their codes (SA-TIGES, SA-PROFONDEUR, SA-PRODUIT, SA-CONTROLE), so the agent knows exactly what is validated. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish this from the close sibling cao_bim_ancrages, leaving that differentiation implicit.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ("Appelez quand vous devez VERIFIER...") and adds a clear caveat that ATE/agrément and signed CCTP take precedence. It gives no explicit when-not or named alternative, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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