Récupère la liste complète des articles (produits) enregistrés dans la boutique. Retourne un tableau d’articles contenant les champs id, titre, prix, rayon, TVA, etc. Le paramètre optionnel 'format' permet de choisir la sortie (json, csv ou html).

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

The description doesn't contradict the readOnlyHint annotation (which indicates safe read operation). While the description itself adds no behavioral context, the title provides useful information about what fields are returned (id, titre, prix, rayon, TVA, etc.) and mentions the format parameter functionality. This adds value beyond the annotations, though it's in the title rather than the description field.

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 'Liste des Lister les articles' is under-specified rather than concise - it's a redundant, grammatically flawed phrase that fails to communicate meaningful information. While brief, it doesn't earn its place as it provides no value beyond the tool name.

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 read-only listing tool with good annotation coverage (readOnlyHint) and a well-documented single parameter, the description is inadequate but the title provides substantial context about return fields and parameter usage. Without an output schema, the title's mention of return fields helps, but the description itself contributes almost nothing to completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage (1 parameter fully documented in schema with enum values and default), the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, but the title mentions the format parameter's purpose ('choisir la sortie'). This provides minimal additional context but doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Liste des Lister les articles' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'data_list_products' in French, with grammatical errors ('Lister' repeated). It doesn't provide a clear verb+resource statement beyond what's already implied by the name. The title provides more detail, but the description itself fails to articulate what the tool does.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like 'data_list_orders', 'data_list_clients', etc., there's no indication of what distinguishes this product listing tool from other listing tools or when it should be selected over them.

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