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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it 'returns a structured, audited deliverable' and that inputs are validated server-side, but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply (e.g., state changes, auth requirements, rate limits). It is consistent with annotations.

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 short (two sentences plus a reference) and front-loads the core purpose. No redundant or wasted text. However, it is concise at the cost of completeness for parameters and usage.

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 has 8 parameters including nested objects and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format, optional parameters (async, focus, targetLabels, currentInitiatives), or how the deliverable is structured. The reference case helps but does not compensate for missing details.

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 13%, meaning most parameters (including the nested company object, ambitions, etc.) lack descriptions. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's required fields list. It merely says 'send the documented case fields' without explaining parameter semantics or format.

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 it builds CSR policies (Architecte de politique RSE) and returns a structured deliverable. It mentions a reference case to illustrate scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sustainability_report or carbon_footprint_calculator, though the purpose is distinct.

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 mentions 'Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise' hinting at a premium tool, but no when-not-to-use or comparison to siblings. The instruction to 'send the documented case fields' is about parameter input, not usage context.

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