Lire une fiche produit Greenweez

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully disclosed. The description adds the note that food information is included in the read, which is behavioral context beyond annotations. With strong annotation coverage, the description's additional context is meaningful but not extensive.

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 a single clean sentence with no waste. It covers the core purpose and scope efficiently. It could add a small amount of parameter guidance but is otherwise appropriately concise.

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 read operation with strong annotations (readOnly, openWorld, no output schema), the description captures the essential purpose. However, with 0% schema coverage, both parameters remain semantically under-explained, and there is no mention of what the returned product data looks like. For a fairly simple 2-param read tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters (reference and slug). The description only mentions these fields by name without explaining their format or semantics (e.g., that reference is an alphanumeric product ID and slug is a URL-friendly identifier). It does add that both are used to locate the product but provides no guidance on how to obtain or format them.

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 ('Lit') with a clear resource ('fiche produit publique') identified by its two key fields (référence et slug). It also notes the inclusion of food information, adding useful scope. It does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like search_products, but the read-by-reference/slug purpose is clear enough to differentiate.

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 this is for reading a single public product by exact reference and slug, which suggests it is for fetching a known product rather than searching. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus search_products, nor mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the product must already exist, or whether 'public' means no auth needed). The when-to-use is implied but not articulated.

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