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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states read-only nature ('Lecture seule'), error behavior ('not_found' error), and the scope of output (details, variants, availability), which is strong context beyond the 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?

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage, and error/behavior. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (one required parameter plus optional context object) and absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, error handling, and read-only status. It would benefit from a hint about the exact return structure, but the mention of 'details, variants, availability' mitigates this.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the 'id' parameter comes from search_catalog or lookup_catalog, providing provenance and usage context that the schema alone does not convey.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves complete details of one product by ID, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing search_catalog and lookup_catalog as the source for the ID, making it clear this is for fetching a specific product's details.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('when the client wants details, variants, or availability of a specific product') and implies that the ID comes from sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, so it misses the full 'when-not' guidance.

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