get_donation_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieves' and 'Returns' imply a non-mutating read operation, and the output contents are summarized, but it does not discuss pagination, data freshness, or any checkout session requirements.

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 two concise sentences that pack in the resource, scope, return value, and use case without redundant filler. It is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 zero-parameter read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description provides an adequate summary of what the list contains and why it is useful. It could mention whether the list is sorted, limited, or dependent on session state, but these are not critical gaps for this 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully covered. The description adds meaningful context about what is returned (EAN, title, brand, slug, category, images, attributes), which is the only relevant semantic dimension for a parameterless tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and a specific resource ('donation products') with clear scope (Carrefour France). It clearly differentiates this tool from all sibling tools, none of which target donation products.

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 identifies the intended use case: displaying available charities/associations during checkout. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a zero-parameter retrieval tool.

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