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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it discloses that option dependencies are NOT included and that `presets` are quotable as-is via `selection.preset`. Minor gap: no pagination/size hints, but for a single-product read that is not material.

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 return content, then the when-to-call guidance, then the caveat about dependencies. Every sentence carries value, though the preset/dependency details make it denser than strictly minimal.

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 describe returns, which it does thoroughly (options, available values, presets). It also clarifies the relationship to validate_selection and quote_product, leaving nothing an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 100% and the single parameter's provenance (productId from search_products) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning to productId. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

States a specific verb (renvoie) and resource (options configurables d'un produit) with the concrete content returned (quantités, délais, valeurs, tailles) and their available values. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by framing the product as a configuration space rather than a fixed SKU.

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?

Explicitly says to call it BEFORE validate_selection or quote_product, naming both alternatives and the ordering condition. It even explains that validate_selection is the tool that reveals option dependencies, giving a clear handoff.

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