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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that shopping leads are external/verified and that the tool still returns something when the feed is empty — real behavioral context — but it doesn't explain the tension with the schema's 'disponibilité à vérifier' or what the linked''look' actually contains.

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?

It is short and front-loads the verb, which is good, but the second sentence ('Hub chemisier = article satin + capsule, même si le feed est vide') is dense, jargon-laden, and arguably does not earn its space without surrounding explanation.

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 values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a tool that chains a piece to a look to external shopping leads, the description leaves the relationship to get_piece_hub and recommend_look undefined and the fallback behavior only glancingly described.

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 limit and include_products are already fully documented, and the description correctly reinforces that 'piece' accepts a slug or natural language. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no format details beyond the schema.

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 verb 'relie' (links) plus 'pièce signature' and 'look Capucine' conveys the general action, but the goal is only loosely stated: is this a lookup, an enrichment, or a shopping aggregation? The cryptic closing line 'Hub chemisier = article satin + capsule' is domain jargon that doesn't disambiguate it from siblings like get_piece_hub, recommend_look, or shopping_search.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus get_piece_hub, recommend_look, shopping_search, or shopping_criteria, nor any when-not conditions. The only implied trigger is 'pièce signature', leaving the agent to infer selection from names alone.

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