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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation with external data access. The description adds 'Returns a structured, audited deliverable' and 'Inputs are validated server-side', which is consistent but does not significantly enhance transparency beyond the annotations. No contradictions are present.

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 sentence with a reference case, making it concise but slightly cryptic. The terminology 'Dimensionnement marché' and 'Gapup agent-payable' may confuse some agents. It could be structured more clearly with bullet points or separated sections for input requirements and output format.

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 complex input schema (nested objects) and no output schema, the description should provide more context on expected inputs and the structure of the deliverable. The reference case gives numerical examples but lacks explanation of how to supply the required fields. Many sibling tools exist, but the description does not help agents decide when to use this tool over others.

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 (17%) with only the 'async' parameter described. The description says 'send the documented case fields' but does not specify what fields are required or how they map to parameters. For example, it does not explain that 'product' requires name, category, valueProposition, or that 'target' requires geography, segments, customerType. More parameter guidance is needed.

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 'Dimensionnement marché TAM/SAM/SOM' which clearly indicates market sizing for TAM/SAM/SOM. It mentions returning a structured deliverable and provides a reference case, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like market_entry_strategist or competitive_deep_dive, so it falls short of a 5.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CMO)' and 'send the documented case fields' but does not provide explicit context or exclusions. This is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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