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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so "Lecture seule" is pure repetition. The added value is the "Indicatif — réglementation sanitaire et CCTP signés priment" caveat, which warns the agent the output is non-authoritative; nothing is said about what each sub-check returns or how failures are signaled.

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 condition is front-loaded and the whole definition is two dense sentences. Minor redundancy: the sub-scope list with VO- codes is immediately followed by a restatement of the same four keys as a scene 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 with full schema coverage, no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies enough to call it correctly, including the important caveat that results are indicative. Slightly incomplete on what a check produces per sub-item.

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 nested object is documented in the schema with the same four keys. The description only restates that structure ("scene : vide_ordures {conduit, reception, ventilation, securite}"), adding no expected shapes, units or format beyond it — baseline 3.

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 (vide-ordures / colonne de déchets), then enumerates the four check sub-scopes (conduit, réception, ventilation, sécurité). It is clear what the tool inspects, though it does not name which sibling (e.g. cao_bim_local_poubelles, cao_bim_evacuation) it is meant to be used instead of.

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 VIDE-ORDURES" gives an explicit triggering condition, which is stronger than most siblings in this family. It provides no exclusions or named alternatives, 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.