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

The description claims the tool returns a 'structured, audited deliverable' and that inputs are validated server-side. With readOnlyHint=true, no mutation is implied. However, it does not detail performance, response format, or how the async parameter affects behavior. No contradictions with annotations, but minimal additional context beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise (two sentences plus a reference line) but includes jargon ('Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CRO)') that may confuse. The reference case is illustrative but takes space. It could be more direct without losing utility.

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 complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and async option), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the deliverable structure, how to interpret results, or how filtering options (like geography, preferredStructure) affect output. The lack of output schema and low schema coverage exacerbate this deficiency.

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 description coverage is only 14% (only 'async' has a description). The tool's description does not explain any parameter purpose beyond 'send the documented case fields'. For a tool with 7 parameters including nested objects (company, targets, salesTeam), this is insufficient. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics.

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 tool creates a commission plan architecture, as indicated by the title 'Architecture plan de commissionnement' and the mention of returning a structured deliverable. The reference case provides context. However, the description lacks an explicit verb like 'design' or 'build', and the mixed French/English wording may cause ambiguity. It distinguishes from siblings like 'executive_comp_peer_benchmark' by focusing on plan architecture rather than benchmarking.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides a reference case but does not mention similar tools like 'comp_benchmark_geo_delta' or 'executive_comp_peer_benchmark'. It implies usage for designing compensation plans but offers no exclusions or context for choosing between tools.

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