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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns (nom, marque, description, liens) and explicitly notes that Amazon prices and ratings are unavailable. It does not discuss side effects, but 'Recherche' plus the return fields strongly imply a read-only search operation.

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 a dense but reasonably sized single paragraph that starts with the core purpose and then adds filter details and return behavior. It could benefit from clearer line breaks or bullets, but every sentence is informative and there is no padding.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential calling context: filter semantics, keyword behavior, and return fields. It does not mention sorting, result wrapping, or when to prefer sibling tools, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by mapping category values to product types and giving concrete brand and keyword examples, which helps an agent select meaningful filter values.

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 opens with 'Recherche dans le catalogue de produits sans gluten', naming the action and resource clearly. It goes on to list filters and returned fields, making it distinct from get_product and list_comparatifs, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

It gives concrete usage context by explaining the category values and how to use the query parameter with suggested keywords like 'pates' and 'pain'. It does not provide explicit exclusions or contrast with sibling tools, but the intended use is clear.

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