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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses return fields (nom, marque, prix, notes, liens) and mentions the limit parameter via context, but does not explain ordering, pagination, error behavior, or that the operation is read-only (though that is implicit for a search). It adds useful return-format details but remains somewhat superficial compared to possible behavioral caveats.

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 single concise paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then lists filters and return fields. It is efficient with no fluff, though a slightly structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability without adding length. Overall, it is appropriately compact for the information density.

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 adequately explains what the tool returns and how to filter. It covers all parameters and offers sufficient guidance for typical search use cases. It does not mention error handling or empty results, but for a search tool with optional filters, this is a minor gap. Siblings are unlikely to require additional context.

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 extra value by giving concrete keyword suggestions (e.g., 'pates', 'pain', 'farine', 'biscuit') and expanding category examples beyond the schema's brief list. This goes slightly beyond the schema descriptions, enhancing usability.

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 its function: searching a verified gluten-free Amazon product catalog. It lists specific filters (category, brand, keywords) and returns a defined set of fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings (get_product, list_comparatifs) by being the search-oriented tool, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 gives clear guidance on how to use the tool: filter by category, brand, or keywords, with explicit examples for each. It implies this is the tool to use for searching the catalog, but does not explicitly mention alternative tools like get_product or list_comparatifs, nor does it state when not to use it. Thus clear context without exclusions.

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