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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: no pricing, stale embedded prices, videos live in `videos` not `images`, missing fields mean unset in the PIM, FAQ is rare, and exactly one argument must be supplied.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the resource and payload lead, then usage, then pricing caveat, then the argument rule. Slightly long, but nearly every clause carries distinct, actionable information rather than filler.

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 the return shape, and it does by enumerating the sheet sections and the field-absence semantics. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by stating the exclusivity rule ('Fournissez exactement un argument') that the schema itself does not express — all three params are optional with no oneOf constraint.

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+resource and enumerates the exact payload (PIM sheet: descriptions, key points, FAQ, file constraints, resources). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from quote_product and corrects a common confusion (prices appear in text but are stale).

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 explicit when-to-use ('pour DÉCRIRE un produit ou aider à préparer un fichier') and when-not ('Ne renvoie aucun prix — pour coter, passez par quote_product'), naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. Also routes category-page lookups to search_products.

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