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

Far exceeds the annotations (which only cover the safe-read profile): it discloses the single automatic query relaxation and the relaxedQuery signal, the non-authoritative nature of startingPrice, the per-product basis variance (TOTAL/UNIT/PER_SQUARE_METER) with a rule against cross-basis comparison, and duplicate listings via alsoListedAs. These are response-shape behaviours not documented anywhere else, since there is no output schema.

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 and required entry-point status are front-loaded in the first two sentences; every subsequent clause targets a distinct pitfall (price semantics, basis mixing, duplicates). It is dense and reads as a wall of caveats, but nothing is redundant.

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 still covers the returned fields, their trust level, the basis-incomparability rule, the relaxation behaviour and duplicate handling — everything an agent needs to call it and interpret results 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 description coverage is 100% and the q description already documents word-matching, ignored dimensions/quantities, the 3-letter rule and relaxation, so the description adds little parameter-level detail. It contributes only indirect guidance (use `startingPrice.displayLabel` when citing), so the baseline 3 for schema-carried parameters applies.

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 (full-text search of the Fulfiller catalogue) plus what it returns (currently quotable products with productId, sku, url, startingPrice). It also positions itself against siblings by declaring itself the mandatory entry point for the productId-consuming tools and by contrasting its indicative startingPrice with quote_product's firm price.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Point d’entrée obligatoire' tells the agent this must run first, and 'seul quote_product' directs firm pricing to the sibling. It also gives an exclusion-type instruction — do not present alsoListedAs entries as distinct products — and explains when the query gets relaxed.

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