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

Annotations only carry the safety profile, and the description goes well beyond them with gating logic, exports_authorized / exports_professionnels_autorises outcomes, IFC 4 + buildingSMART + IDS validation, and the warnings_expliques requirement before a professional delivery. It is silent on permissions and on where the produced files actually land, and its 'produces deliverables' framing sits awkwardly beside readOnlyHint=true.

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?

Front-loaded: the WHEN clause and the check-first gate come before any detail, and every sentence carries a distinct fact (gate, validation, manifest contents, professional-delivery condition). It is dense and parenthesis-heavy, with some repetition around the SHA-256 'compare it with your own' remark, but nothing is padding.

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 17-parameter tool with heavy nesting and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the manifest payload rather than leaving return values unexplained, and it covers the branch where nothing is produced. What is missing is the mechanics of delivery — where artifacts are written, their naming, and how the caller retrieves them.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the heavy lifting is already done and the baseline is 3. The description adds little param-level syntax beyond tying `ids` to IDS validation and `warnings_expliques` to the professional-delivery flag, which is behavioural context rather than new parameter meaning.

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 and resource ('produce the deliverables ... IFC, DXF, drawing sheet, quantities, schedules') and adds an orchestration scope that distinguishes it from the raw generators (cao_generer_ifc, cao_generer_dxf, cao_metres): it gates on cao_verifier's checks and emits a manifest. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

'WHEN the deliverables of a project must be produced for real' gives an explicit trigger, and the failure branch (critical alert → nothing produced, exports_authorized false) tells the agent when the tool will not do its job. It never names a sibling alternative in the same role (e.g. plain cao_generer_ifc for drafts), so the routing decision against the other producers is only implied.

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