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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it is 'a pre-study, never a compliance statement', and it flags professional_review_required where its checks do not calculate (structure, floors, roofs). This is useful, honest scoping that an agent can act on.

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 with the WHEN trigger, followed by mechanism and return content. It is dense and the trade list is long, but every clause carries information and there is no filler. Slightly run-on but appropriately sized for a complex reviewer.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey returns — and it does: alerts sorted by trade, named elements (external_id, else ifc_guid), proposed fixes, missing items, and professional_review_required flags. Combined with the 'free, no key' note, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the input-side behavior is left to the rich schema.

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 parameters is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (no mention of murs/ouvertures/boites structure or units). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb+resource (review a design, trade by trade) and explains the mechanism: it runs cao_verifier's checks and sorts alerts into trades. It distinguishes itself from the named sibling cao_verifier by being the organizing/reporting layer. The 'revue_lots' concept is clear, though the core verb phrase is slightly abstract.

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?

Opens with an explicit WHEN clause ('a design must be reviewed trade by trade') and enumerates the covered trades. It names cao_verifier as the underlying check engine, which orients the agent toward the relationship. It does not state when to prefer this over cao_verifier outright, so it lacks a clean exclusion.

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