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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains the return fields (name, brand, price, ratings, links) and parameter constraints (default limit, max), but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or other behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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 paragraph but packs a lot of useful info without fluff. It front-loads the main purpose and then details filters and return fields. No unnecessary sentences, though it could be slightly more structured with bullets, but it's acceptable.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (nom, marque, prix, notes, liens). It also details all parameter values and usage examples. For a search tool with 4 optional params, this is complete and self-sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining exact category values (e.g., 'epicerie' = pâtes/farines/sauces) and suggesting keyword usage ('pates', 'pain', etc.). This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 it searches the verified gluten-free Amazon product catalog, and then details multiple filters (category, brand, keywords) and return fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_product (specific product retrieval) and list_comparatifs (comparisons).

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 implies usage for search scenarios and provides specific filter values and keyword examples, making it clear when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct to siblings, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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