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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive behavioral context the annotations cannot: that prices are "dès" TTC (starting-from, tax-inclusive), that printable faces carry a max size and a surcharge, and that quantity discounts apply — all decision-relevant for downstream quoting.

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?

One dense but front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and stacks attributes efficiently; the ordering directive sits at the end, which is slightly suboptimal placement for the single most actionable instruction.

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 and only one optional parameter, the description fully carries the burden of describing return content — and it does, itemizing every field family a caller would need before choosing a product or computing a quote.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage ("Filtrer sur une catégorie"), so the baseline is 3. The description implicitly supplies the category vocabulary (T-shirt, sweat, hoodie, polo, tote bag) but never states that `category` filters on those values, so it does not materially exceed the 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 description enumerates exactly what the resource contains (garment types, qualities, materials, prices, colors, sizes, printable faces, quantity discounts, inks, fonts), so an agent knows this returns the full product catalogue. It never states an explicit verb ("liste" / "renvoie") and does not name sibling tools, but the content is specific enough to distinguish it from create_design or get_quote.

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?

"À appeler en premier" gives an explicit ordering rule that tells the agent to invoke this before the design/quote/order tools. There is no when-not guidance or named alternative, which is minor for a discovery entry point that has no true substitute.

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