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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is to add context — and it does by disclosing the payload contents: full description, every image, gencode, weight, and similar products. It does not mention behavior when the ID is invalid or a product is unavailable, which is the main remaining gap.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the return payload in a parenthetical. Nothing is redundant and nothing is buried.

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 one required parameter, full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description does most of the needed work by listing what comes back. It falls slightly short on failure behavior (unknown/invalid ID) and on explicitly steering the agent away from search_products for detail lookups.

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% for the single parameter, including the note that the ID is obtained via search_products, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates 'par son ID' and adds no format, example, or validation detail beyond that.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Obtenir les détails complets d'un produit Cadorama par son ID') and enumerates what is returned (full description, all images, gencode, weight, similar products), so the agent knows exactly what the tool yields. It never names the sibling it replaces (search_products), so the differentiation from that tool is only inferable from the schema, not the description.

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 lookup-by-ID framing implies the usage context, and the schema tells the agent the ID comes from search_products, but the description itself provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. A reader must infer the search-then-fetch workflow rather than being told it.

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