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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false, and 'Lecture seule' is consistent with them. The description adds real context the annotations don't: the result is indicative only, and authoritative documents (note de calcul chauffage, CCTP signe) override it — a meaningful trust/authority signal for an agent acting on the outcome.

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 with the call trigger, densely packed with the four aspects and the caveat in essentially two sentences, with no filler. The bilingual/abbreviation style is terse but every clause carries information.

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?

Read-only, one nested parameter, no output schema — the description covers when to call and what is checked, but never hints at what the check returns (a report, per-aspect verdicts, severity?). For a verification tool whose value is its verdict, that omission leaves the agent guessing about the response.

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%, so a 3 would be the floor, but the description goes further by glossing each sub-field of the nested 'scene' object (reseau = alimentation, regulation = thermostat, securite = terre), which the raw schema only lists by name. Useful, though it does not say what shape each sub-field must take.

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 (SECHE-SERVIETTES) and enumerates the four checked aspects with their domain codes (SES-RESEAU, SES-REGULATION, SES-FIXATION, SES-SECURITE). This differentiates it from the many sibling cao_bim_* equipment tools without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit trigger condition ('Appelez quand vous devez VERIFIER LE SECHE-SERVIETTES'), plus an authority caveat that the heating calculation note and signed CCTP take precedence. It never names an alternative sibling (e.g. cao_bim_radiateur, cao_bim_salle_bain), so routing against neighbours is left implicit.

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