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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing partial-result behavior ('si le shopping est vide, le look et les sources restent'), which tells the agent it may get a degraded but non-empty payload.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the input mapping and the fallback caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated 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?

Given an output schema, full parameter coverage and rich annotations, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: the content of the dossier and the empty-shopping degradation. Only the explicit routing versus list_piece_hubs is missing.

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% and the schema already documents both parameters, including the natural-language-to-slug normalization with examples. The description restates the same synonym mapping (chemisier/blouse/chemise → hub chemisier), adding marginal value but no syntax or constraint the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (retrieves the complete dossier of a signature piece) and enumerates the returned sections: definition, capsules, FAQ, articles. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like list_piece_hubs (which lists) or shop_the_look (which assembles products), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the synonym mapping (chemisier/blouse/chemise → hub chemisier) shows what input shape triggers the right hub, and the fallback note hints at expected results. But there is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'use list_piece_hubs instead when…' guidance.

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