FiltreCharbon

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two behavioral notes — partial data ('Unknown dimensions stay unknown') and a data-access boundary ('No access to customer or order data') — which are useful, though the 'unknown dimensions' phrasing is cryptic and no error or empty-result behavior is described.

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 action and resource, then two short scope clauses. No padding, though the fragment-style 'Unknown dimensions stay unknown' reads awkwardly.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's data listing is helpful, but for a two-parameter lookup with 0% schema coverage it leaves the caller without any parameter guidance. Scope is covered; invocation details are not.

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 0% and the description never mentions either parameter. It does not explain the fc_ref pattern (FC/FV/FW prefix format), the id_product integer, or how the two relate, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 verb 'Consulte' plus the resource ('caractéristiques publiques, références associées, prix et stock du catalogue') states concretely what data the tool returns, and it is distinguishable from 'trouver_filtre' (search) and 'preparer_commande' (order prep). It does not explicitly name the siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied — the agent must infer this is the detail-lookup step after finding a filter. It states a scope boundary ('No access to customer or order data') but never says when to prefer it over 'trouver_filtre' or how it relates to 'preparer_commande'.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: no order is created, no payment is taken, the link embeds personal data in its fragment, it must not be published, and it supports only France and Belgium. This is exactly the privacy and transaction-boundary context an agent needs and that annotations cannot express.

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?

Short, front-loaded sentences that each add a distinct constraint: scope, non-action, consent, privacy, user confirmation, prohibited data, coverage country. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema and nested/partial-use parameters, the description does well on the behavioral side (privacy of the fragment, no payment, geographic scope) but leaves the return artifact underspecified — it never says where the link comes back or in what shape, and several input parameters remain uninterpreted. Complete enough to call safely, not complete enough to call confidently with non-default parameters.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the full burden — yet it only adds meaning for client and consentement_coordonnees (optional, consent required). It says nothing about qte, src, fc_ref, or id_product, nor explains the meaning of the fc_ref pattern or the qte cap of 10, leaving four parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 precise verb+resource: 'Prépare uniquement un lien privé vers FiltreCharbon.com', and immediately delimits it by what it does not do (no order, no payment). An agent can tell this is a link-generation tool rather than a catalog lookup, but the description never names or contrasts with the siblings details_filtre / trouver_filtre, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Gives concrete usage conditions: client coordinates are optional, explicit user consent must be obtained before passing them, card data must never be submitted, and the link may only be shown to that user. This is strong when/when-not guidance, though it never routes the agent to an alternative tool for the catalog-discovery steps that presumably precede this call.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description goes beyond them with high-value operational detail: a hard cap of 3 matches, that results include dimensions/price/confidence, that matches need verification, and the privacy constraint (no personal data or photos) on a text-only tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by return behavior and then constraints. No filler sentences, though the language mixing (French purpose, English remainder) is slightly jarring for a single definition.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back (up to 3 matches, dimensions, price, confidence) and adds verification and privacy constraints. The main gap is the undocumented 'marque' parameter, which the schema also leaves blank.

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 0% and neither parameter is described in the schema, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that 'texte' should be an exact reference and that the E-Nr suffix must be preserved, but the second parameter ('marque') is never mentioned, leaving half the input undocumented.

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 ('Recherche une référence exacte de filtre ou d'appareil dans le catalogue FAC') and even narrows scope to exact-reference lookup. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'details_filtre', which an agent would plausibly confuse it with.

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?

'Recherche une référence exacte' implies the trigger condition (you have an exact E-Nr reference), and the warning that matches 'require verification' hints at follow-up behavior. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs 'details_filtre' or 'preparer_commande', so routing must be inferred.

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