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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond those: answers are restricted to official documentation, supported languages are FR/EN/NL, and the output includes answer text, sources, and NLWeb results. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, then states constraints and return value. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only Q&A tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, input scope, language constraints, and return contents. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it could improve by mentioning when not to use it in favor of cotation or regles_gsc.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes 'query' as a natural-language question with a max length. The description adds practical parameter semantics by enumerating the topics the question may cover (payments, taxes, safes, shipping, appraisals), which helps the agent decide whether a query fits the 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 clearly states the verb 'Ask', the resource 'Gold & Silver Company', and the scope ('buying and selling gold and silver, payments, taxes, safes, shipping, appraisals'). It also explains the return type, which helps an agent understand this is a general Q&A tool. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools cotation and regles_gsc.

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?

Usage is implied: the agent should call this tool when the user has any question about the listed services. The constraint 'Answers come only from the official documentation' gives useful context, but there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidelines or named alternatives among the sibling tools.

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