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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which align with the tool generating a deliverable without side effects. The description adds that inputs are validated server-side, but does not explain the async parameter behavior or the nature of the return value beyond being 'structured, audited'. The added context is minimal and does not disclose potential behaviors like processing time or polling.

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 relatively short (three sentences) but includes a fragmented first sentence and a reference case that may not be universally relevant. It could be more concise by front-loading the core function (marketing plan generation) and removing the cryptic 'Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CMO)' phrase.

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?

The tool has 11 parameters, no output schema, and minimal description. The description does not explain the deliverable's structure, the role of the 'async' parameter, or how to interpret results. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to infer or fail on execution.

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 only 9% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining key parameters like companyName, arrCurrent, etc. Instead, it only provides a reference case example, which implies parameter meanings but does not explicitly define them. The schema itself lacks descriptions for most fields, so the tool definition fails to guide the agent on what values to provide.

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 that the tool returns a structured, audited marketing deliverable, referencing a 'Plan de bataille marketing' for CMO expertise. However, it does not differentiate from marketing-related siblings like brand_builder or positioning_strategist, leaving ambiguity about when to choose this tool over others.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks explicit use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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