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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so "Lecture seule" adds nothing. The genuinely additive element is the "Indicatif" disclaimer plus the note that RE2020/RT2012 and signed contracts prevail, which tells the agent the returned verdict is advisory rather than normative — a behavioral trait not encoded in any structured field.

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?

One dense paragraph with the action verb front-loaded and the scope enumeration, caveat and read-only marker in descending order of importance. It loses a point only for duplicating the schema's nested-object notation verbatim, which is wasted text.

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?

Covers what is inspected and the reliability caveat, and no output schema exists so return values need not be explained. But for a tool with a nested scene object and zero required parameters, it never says whether "scene" may be omitted (falling back to the active scene) nor what a check result looks like, leaving an agent to guess at invocation defaults.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the schema string nearly verbatim ("scene : test_etancheite {test, seuil, rapport, corrections}") without explaining what a scene reference looks like or whether it defaults to the current scene — so it adds no 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?

States a specific verb+resource (verify the airtightness/blower-door test of a scene) and enumerates the sub-aspects covered (TE-TEST measurement, TE-SEUIL Q4 threshold, TE-RAPPORT report, TE-CORRECTIONS re-test). However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling cao_bim_etancheite_air, nor from cao_bim_etancheite or cao_bim_jonctions_etancheite, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which one to pick.

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 LE TEST D'ETANCHEITE A L'AIR" implies the triggering situation, and "Indicatif — RE2020/RT2012 et marche signes priment" sets an authority boundary. But that caveat is about regulatory precedence, not tool selection: no sibling alternative is named and no when-not condition is given, which matters given the crowded etancheite/air family.

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