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 usefully adds a fidelity guarantee (figures match the IFC export exactly — same spaces, types, IsExternal flag), but it says nothing about the fact that a full scene graph must be supplied as input or about the shape of the returned data.

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?

It is front-loaded with the WHEN clause and every clause carries content — the detailed schedule inventory compensates for the absent output schema. The cost is that it reads as one very long run-on sentence rather than scannable structure.

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 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does well to enumerate the produced schedules, effectively standing in for the missing return-value documentation. What it omits is the input side: nothing tells the agent it must supply a complete millimetre-based scene (murs/boites/ouvertures) for this to work.

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 every one of the 12 scene-composition parameters is already documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond that (it references openings and marks only obliquely), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb+resource — produce schedules (doors, windows, rooms) — and enumerates the exact contents of each schedule (marks P1/F1, sill height, clear opening width, Carrez areas, equipment counts), which is far more specific than the title. However, it never distinguishes itself from closely related siblings like cao_metres, cao_pdf or cao_devis, which an agent must pick between.

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 someone needs the SCHEDULES of a house design" gives an implied trigger condition, but there is no when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named. An agent reading only this description cannot tell why it should call cao_nomenclatures rather than cao_metres for quantities.

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