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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so a safe read-only behavior is established. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying the returned scope: 'formulas, eligibility criteriaand coverage details' and Amazon's role, which helps agents understand the behavioral emphasis on catalogue listing.

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 compact: a two-sentence format with both the purpose and a usage note about get_quote. The bilingual repetition of 'protection juridique' is a minor redundancy, but it does not harm readability or decision-making.

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?

For a simple read-only/list tool with both endpoint parameters clearly documented and strong annotations, the description gives enough context to call it confidently: it names the broker scope, the category of products, and the workflow position relative to get_quote. No output schema is present, but the description compensates by naming the key data domains.

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 schema already clearly documents both category and broker_code, including aliases and the broker-authenticated mode. The description does not add meaningful endpoint-specific or parameter formatting behavior beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'List a broker's legal protection products (protection juridique)' with formulas, eligibility criteria, and coverage details. It also distinguishes itself from get_quote by explaining it provides the catalogue that precedes quoting.

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 says 'Call this before get_quote to see which formulas the broker distributes,' giving a clear sequencing/usage rule and context within the workflow. It does not explicitly explain when not to use it versus siblings like get_broker_info, so it stops short of a fully explicit all-alternatives comparison.

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