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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the returned dossier structure and the fallback behavior when shopping is empty ('le look et les sources restent'). No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is returned, input normalization, and edge-case behavior. The content is front-loaded and there is no 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?

An output schema exists, so return structure is covered. The description handles input mapping and an edge case. Remaining gaps are the undocumented include_products parameter and the absence of an explicit pointer to list_piece_hubs for discovering available hubs, but these are minor for a simple 2-param read-only tool.

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 only 50%. The description enriches the piece parameter with natural-language examples and slug mapping, which is valuable. However, include_products is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so half the parameters lack semantic guidance.

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 and resource: pulling the complete dossier for a signature piece, enumerating contents (definition, capsules, FAQ, articles). It also distinguishes the scope by showing singular piece-to-hub mapping, avoiding confusion with siblings like list_piece_hubs or shopping tools.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (for a specific signature piece) and gives a concrete normalization rule ('Chemisier / blouse / chemise → hub chemisier'). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or contrast with list_piece_hubs, but the singular scope is implied strongly enough.

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