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.