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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the notion of ranking by sales but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or return shape; with annotations present a 3 fits.

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?

Two short sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is a light usage hint rather than padding, so it earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. Ordering details of the 'best sellers' list are the only minor gap.

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?

There is a single optional 'limit' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no information about the limit or default behavior, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Lister') and resource ('produits les plus vendus') with the store named, so an agent can distinguish it from get_new_arrivals or get_promotions. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

'Pratique pour suggérer ce qui plaît le plus aux clients' implies a recommendation/discovery use case, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or routing to alternatives like search_products or get_new_arrivals for related needs.

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