Check an electrical installation (NF C 15-100, IEC 60364)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the finding shape (level, rule, node id, message, source), the returned viewer_url/pdf_url, and the important caveat that 'scope' means automatic document-data checks, not a conformity certificate.

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 verb and resource, then the rule application, then the return shape — a sensible order. It is somewhat dense with parenthetical enumerations ('schéma unifilaire, tableau électrique') and repeats the profile identifiers already in the schema, which costs a little efficiency but does not obscure the point.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values, yet it usefully characterises the findings, scope caveat, and URLs. It is complete enough to call correctly (accepted document forms, profile defaults), with the only real gap being no relationship to the sibling 'validate' tool.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description's profile details ('nfc15100', 'enedis', 'iec60364', default behaviour, 'core' always applies) largely duplicate the schema's own wording, so the added meaning over structured data is marginal — 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?

States a concrete verb (check/validate) and resource (an electrical installation document: single-line diagram, panel, schéma unifilaire, tableau électrique) and names the rule profiles applied. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'validate' tool, which sounds like an overlapping validation step.

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 explains profile defaults ('default: the document's profiles', 'core always applies') and clarifies scope, which implies the tool's place in the workflow after get_example/apply_patch/normalize. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with the sibling 'validate', so the choice between the two is left to inference.

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