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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with them ("Lecture seule"). It adds real context beyond the annotations with "Indicatif — DTU plomberie et CCTP signes priment", telling the agent the output is advisory and normative documents take precedence. It does not describe the shape of the check result, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the call condition comes first, then the domain list, then the modelling hint, then the caveat. Slight redundancy in listing the four components twice (once with codes, once as the scene object) and in repeating "WC / toilette", but nothing is wasted overall.

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 read-only, single-parameter check tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential trigger, scope and caveat. The only missing piece is what a check returns (findings list, conformity verdict, per-domain status), which the agent must guess.

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 `scene` parameter is already documented as a nested wc object, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description still adds meaning by mapping the four sub-keys to the four verification domains, which the schema only lists as bare names.

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) plus the resource (WC/toilette) and enumerates the four checked sub-domains with explicit codes (WCD-EVACUATION, WCD-ROBINETTERIE, WCD-FIXATION, WCD-VENTILATION). This clearly separates it from generic siblings like cao_bim_evacuation, cao_bim_robinetterie or cao_bim_salle_bain, which cover one discipline rather than the whole toilet fixture.

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 WC" gives an explicit trigger condition, front-loaded and in caps. It does not name exclusions or point to alternative tools for partial checks (e.g. pure drainage or pure ventilation), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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