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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context that prices are live and buyback is via cotation, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like return format or dynamic data behavior beyond what annotations convey.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, but it is a long, dense paragraph with many parenthetical details. It could be more readable with bullet points or clearer separation of topics, though it avoids truly redundant wording.

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 that an output schema exists and the annotations cover safety, the description is rich enough for an agent to understand what content is available. It covers all key product categories and processes, though it could benefit from explicit mapping to the `produit` enum values and clearer guidance against using sibling tools.

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 50%, and the description compensates for the `produit` parameter by explaining the content categories: gold bars, silver bars, refinery process, verification, and buyback. It does not explicitly describe the `langue` parameter, but that parameter is self-explanatory through its enum values.

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 providing information about Gold & Silver Company's own products, including gold and silver bars, refinery processes, verification, buyback, and purchasing. It uses specific verbs and resources, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like `piece` or `cotation`.

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 the tool is useful: when a user asks about GSC's own bars, refinery operations, verification, buyback, or how to buy. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as `cotation` or `piece`, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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