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.