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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the result is indicative only, the regulatory study takes precedence, and the computation chain (qp(z) → facade pressure → resultant force → weight/wind ratio ≥ 1,5) is disclosed.

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 trigger clause is front-loaded and every following clause carries substantive information (variables, accepted values, fallback derivation, disclaimer). It is a single dense sentence with heavy punctuation, which is slightly taxing but not padded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming what is returned (qp(z), cpe, force resultante, ratio poids/vent). The nested scene object is only glossed over, but the schema documents its fields and the description explains the height/surface fallback, so an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds domain meaning the schema lacks: region 1-4 maps to base velocities of 22–28 m/s, terrain accepts 0|I|II|III|IV, and facade_surface_m2 can be replaced by a height deduced from the scene. That is real interpretive value, not repetition.

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 precise verb+resource (estimer les CHARGES DE VENT sur un batiment) with the standard cited (Eurocode 1-1-4) and enumerates the exact quantities computed (qp(z), cpe simplifie 1,3, force resultante, ratio poids/vent). This clearly separates it from neighbors such as cao_bim_descente_charges (which supplies the weight) or cao_bim_sismique.

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 estimer les CHARGES DE VENT" is an explicit trigger, and the description notes the weight comes from the descente de charges, implying the prerequisite sibling. It also warns that the regulatory wind study prevails. It does not explicitly name a competing tool to use instead for other load types, so it falls short of a full when/when-not routing.

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