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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by noting that the rental is outside the banking system, that custody is numbered and non-nominative, and that availability is deliberately omitted. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting 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?

The description is a dense single sentence that front-loads the domain and enumerates all covered aspects without repetition. The long list makes it slightly heavy, but every element earns its place for an informational 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?

Given the tool's simple optional parameters, read-only annotations, and existing output schema, the description covers the important facts and explicitly flags the availability limitation. The only minor gap is that it does not describe default behavior when the format parameter 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?

The description adds meaning to the format parameter by referencing the four box sizes and the 'numbered non-nominative custody' option, complementing the schema's enum values. However, it says nothing about the langue parameter, and with only 50% schema coverage the description only partially compensates for the undocumented half.

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?

Clearly identifies the resource (safe-deposit box rental at Gold & Silver Company) and the specific content offered: box sizes, dimensions, prices, custody, documents, payment, notice, access, security, and confidentiality. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with sibling info tools like produits_gsc or regles_gsc, but the topic and scope are unambiguous.

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 makes its scope clear and explicitly states a key boundary: availability is not provided, and users should call the agency. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use conditions, but the agency reference and the focused subject give an agent enough context to select it appropriately.

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