Rechercher des produits Greenweez

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, which covers the safety and repeatability profile well. The description adds the 'publique' (no-auth needed) context, which is valuable. No contradictions detected. However, it doesn't disclose return format, pagination count, price observation context, or any rate limits. With strong annotations, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds modest value beyond them.

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 compact sentence in French that efficiently conveys purpose, scope, and output. Zero wasted words. Extremely concise and appropriately sized for a simple list-search tool.

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?

This is a relatively simple 2-parameter, read-only, idempotent search tool with strong annotations. The description adequately conveys the core function. However, given it's an e-commerce catalog search (Greenweez), details like language/locale assumptions, whether results are sorted, or what 'prix observés' means could add value. But for a simple search tool with good annotations, this is near-complete. Not a 5 because some behavioral detail (e.g., result count, sorting, relevance) is omitted.

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 carries the burden for parameter meaning. However, the description mentions 'page de produits' which implies the page parameter controls pagination, and 'query' is self-explanatory as the search term. For only 2 simple parameters, this marginal coverage is adequate. The description adds some meaning inferable beyond schema, but doesn't explicitly document either parameter.

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 (recherche/searches), resource (catalogue Greenweez), and the output (une page de produits avec les prix observés). This is a specific public catalog search. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_product, though 'recherche publique' + pagination ('une page de produits') helps differentiate the list/search scope from a single-product fetch.

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 usage context ('Recherche publique dans le catalogue') but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It doesn't state when to use this vs get_product or against the cart operations. The 'publique' qualifier hints it's a no-auth search, which is useful, but no exclusion or comparison to sibling tools is given.

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