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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it enumerates what is returned (name, brand, filter values, sourced official data, product-page link) and explicitly warns that price and ratings live on the linked page rather than in the response — a detail that changes downstream agent behavior.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then markets, then inputs, then returns. It is long but every clause carries information; a light bullet or clause split would improve scannability slightly.

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 four parameters, a nested filters object and no output schema, the description does the necessary work of enumerating return fields and where price/ratings are found. The remaining gap is that the vocabulary of valid filter keys is only gestured at ('les clés et valeurs des filtres du comparateur') without pointing to list_filters.

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 75% and the schema itself already spells out market (fr/us, separate catalogues) and query. The description reinforces the exactness of filters and their origin in the comparator, but does not clarify the nested filter key/value shape or the role of 'limit', so added meaning stays modest.

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 ('Cherche des lave-vaisselle dans le comparateur WashyDish') and scopes it to two named markets with their languages, which an agent can act on immediately. It never names the sibling tools (compare_models, get_model, list_filters, search) that overlap with it, so differentiation is left implicit.

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 implies the usage mode — free-text need combined with exact filters, one market per call — which tells an agent how to phrase a call but not when to prefer this over the sibling 'search' or when to switch to compare_models. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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