get_products_by_query

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral information. It does so by characterizing the operation as read-only ('Retrieves'), listing the output fields, and explicitly stating that an authenticated Carrefour session is required. It doesn't cover failure modes or session expiration, but for a simple query-style read tool this is reasonable.

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 compact: three sentences covering purpose, output content, and usage context, with the authentication note at the end. It is front-loaded and every sentence contributes useful information, with only minor harmless redundancy around 'query ID.'

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?

Given a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main needs: what products are returned, which identifier is used, when to use it, and the auth requirement. It does not fully describe edge cases or response pagination, but nothing essential is missing for most agent uses.

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 the schema already documents both query_id and limit well. The description adds a small amount of context around query_id (e.g., curated lists), but it does not add significant parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Retrieves a list of products'), a clear resource ('Carrefour France'), and a precise mechanism ('predefined query identifier'). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting curated lists such as 'bestsellers, promotions, themed selections'.

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 clearly states when this tool is appropriate: 'fetching curated product lists... identified by a query ID.' It also communicates the authentication prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like search_products or get_products_by_gtins.

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