Détails d'un(e) produit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the optional tab behavior and the return type (complete JSON data), but does not disclose error handling, pagination, or what each tab contains. With annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are clear but repeat the schema information almost verbatim, making them slightly redundant. Still, it is concise and structurally sound, with no wasted words.

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?

For a simple getter with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete: it covers the ID requirement, optional tab, and return type. It does not explain the meaning of each tab, but that is minor given the available context and the tool's simplicity. No output schema exists, but the return description compensates.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (id and tab) with 100% coverage. The description repeats these details but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, as the list of tabs is identical in both. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description offers no further clarification.

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 clearly states the verb 'Récupère' (fetches) and the resource 'produit' (product) with the method 'par son ID' (by its ID). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like boond_products_search, boond_products_create, and other entity getters, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 it: to fetch detailed product information by ID, with an optional tab parameter. It implicitly differentiates from search (which finds products) and create/update/delete, but does not explicitly rule out alternatives or state excluded cases. No explicit when-not or alternative mentions, but the context is strong enough.

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