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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is well established. The description adds useful context like live website prices and buyback via cotation, but it does not disclose deeper behavioral details such as output dynamics or limitations; nothing contradicts the 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 a single dense run-on sentence packed with parenthetical details. It is informative and front-loaded with the core subject, but it would benefit from clearer separation between product offerings, process explanation, and buying guidance.

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 moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema, and the strong annotations, the description covers the main content dimensions and even provides routing context via cotation. It lacks explicit parameter usage guidance and sibling differentiators, but the overall picture is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema coverage at 50%, the description compensates by expanding on the produit enum values: gold and silver bars map to lingots, refinery details to fabrication, and verification/buyback/purchase to relevant categories. It does not explicitly mention the langue parameter, but the enum is self-explanatory and the description still adds meaningful meaning 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 clearly identifies the tool as covering Gold & Silver Company's own products: gold bars, silver bars, refinery operations, verification, buyback, and purchase process. It is specific about the resource and content scope, and the title reinforces it, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools.

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 when to use the tool by enumerating its content areas, and it hints at routing buyback-related queries to cotation. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name alternative tools for related topics such as prices or official links.

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