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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false, so 'Lecture seule' is partly redundant, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the check is indicative only and a signed calculation note takes precedence. It does not disclose the shape of the results (per-rule verdicts vs. free text).

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 trigger and the four check codes, and the disclaimer/read-only traits close it out. The scene structure is stated twice (in prose and again as '{dimensions, profondeur, armatures, ancrage}'), a minor redundancy with the schema.

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 single optional-parameter, read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, the rules checked, and the indicative caveat. The one remaining gap is what the agent gets back for each rule code (pass/fail vs. measured value).

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% and the single parameter's schema description already says 'Scene CAO : semelles {dimensions, profondeur, armatures, ancrage}'. The description repeats that same breakdown without adding format, unit, or nesting detail, so the 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 LES SEMELLES DE FONDATION', fondations superficielles) and enumerates the four checks performed, each with its rule code (SE-DIMENSION, SE-PROFONDEUR, SE-ARMATURES, SE-ANCRAGE). This clearly separates it from sibling tools such as cao_bim_pieux or cao_bim_soutenement.

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 VERIFIER LES SEMELLES DE FONDATION' gives an explicit trigger condition, and the 'Indicatif — note de calcul signee prime' caveat tells the agent this is a preliminary check, not a design. It does not name a specific alternative tool to use instead when deeper foundation design is needed, which keeps it short of a 5.

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