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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Lecture seule'. More importantly, it discloses that the tool does not sign and only controls the visa circuit completeness, which is meaningful behavior beyond the annotations. It does not describe return values or validation outcomes in detail.

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 call condition is front-loaded and the key constraints are packed into a compact definition. Some content, especially the scene structure, repeats the schema, and the all-caps emphasis makes it dense, but there is little 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?

For a complex nested scene object with no output schema, the description covers the input shape and behavioral constraints well enough to call the tool. However, it does not explain what the completeness check returns or what an agent should expect from the control result.

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 scene structure, document types, status values, and signatory fields are already documented in the schema. The description adds a useful semantic rule that the dossier is contractual only when all visas are 'vise', but otherwise largely repeats the schema content.

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?

The description states a specific purpose: managing the visa of the execution dossier (dossier_exe, plan, doe, note_calcul) with statuses and signatories. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as cao_bim_doe, cao_bim_exe, or cao_bim_dossier_complet.

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?

It gives an explicit call condition: 'Appelez quand vous devez GERER LE VISA BE DU DOSSIER D'EXECUTION'. It also clarifies that the act of signing remains human and the tool only checks completeness, but it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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