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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds that the tool returns a structured audited deliverable and inputs are validated server-side. However, it does not detail what the deliverable contains (e.g., format, schema) or any additional behavioral traits like async behavior beyond what the async parameter already conveys.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences plus a reference case. It is front-loaded with the purpose. The mix of French and English may reduce clarity slightly, but overall it is efficient. The reference case adds length but also value for context.

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 complex nested input, no output schema, and many siblings. The description provides a reference case and target audience, but it does not explain the output format, how to use the result, prerequisites, or what qualifies as a valid input beyond schema constraints. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 low (20%), with only the async parameter having a description. The description says 'send the documented case fields' but does not explain what each field (company, team, learningNeeds, budget) means or how to fill them correctly. The agent is left to infer from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for proper invocation.

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 states it is an architect for training & development, returning a structured audited deliverable, with a specific reference case. The verb is implicit ('returns'), but the resource is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'lnd_ai_skill_forecast' or 'lnd_skill_taxonomy_builder', but the title and reference to C-suite expertise and ROI suggest a strategic planning role.

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 the tool is for CHRO-level strategic planning and mentions a reference case, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no guidance on when not to use it or comparison with sibling tools, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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