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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does it well: it lists exactly what is included and explicitly states that price and Amazon ratings are unavailable. This prevents false expectations about the returned data. It does not discuss error behavior or rate limits, but those are less critical for a simple read-by-slug tool.

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 efficient and front-loaded: the first clause states exactly what the tool does, the 'Inclut' list adds concrete return fields, and the final sentence flags a limitation. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the input, enumerates the output fields, states what is not returned, and the schema provides the slug format. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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 input schema already documents the only parameter, slug, at 100% coverage, including an example and a pointer to search_products. The main description adds 'par son slug' but no additional semantic detail beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Récupère') and a precise resource: the complete product sheet by slug. It enumerates the exact fields returned, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search/list tools. The retrieval mechanism (by slug) is explicit and actionable.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you have a product slug and need the full product sheet. The parameter schema adds that the full slug list is available via search_products, which provides useful prerequisite guidance. However, the main description gives no explicit when-to-use versus list_comparatifs or direct alternatives.

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