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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: the conditional 's'il y en a' and especially 'même si le feed est vide' disclose that the tool returns a satin article + capsule fallback even with an empty product feed. This is genuine value-add. Consistent with readOnlyHint/idempotentHint; 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?

Two sentences with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded in sentence one. The second sentence, however, is dense internal jargon (article satin, capsule, feed) that could be stated more plainly, slightly hurting accessibility.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description does not need to explain returns or mutation risk. The main gap is cryptic domain terminology that assumes reader familiarity with Capucine's internal hub/capsule concepts.

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 67% (piece and limit documented, include_products undocumented), placing it in the baseline-3 band. The description adds only marginal parameter insight via the 'Hub chemisier' example; it does not clarify include_products or add syntax detail 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?

States a specific verb (relie/links) with a clear resource: a signature piece to its Capucine look plus verified commercial leads. The 'déjà vérifiées' (already verified) qualifier hints at pre-computed data, which distinguishes it from live search siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly and the jargon ('Hub chemisier', 'capsule') slightly obscures the core purpose.

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 through 'pistes marchandes déjà vérifiées', which suggests this tool uses pre-verified leads rather than live shopping_search. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no exclusion criteria given the large 16-tool sibling set.

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