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 inputs are validated server-side and that it returns a 'structured, audited deliverable'. It does not disclose response format, cost, or side effects beyond what annotations imply, but adds moderate context.

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, mixing French and English. It front-loads the purpose but includes unnecessary details (reference case). It could be more concise and better separated from example data.

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 no output schema, so the description should explain the return value beyond 'structured, audited deliverable'. This is insufficient for an agent to know what to expect. Additionally, the complex parameters are not explained, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 20%, very low for a complex nested schema. The description does not explain individual parameters or their usage, saying only 'send the documented case fields'. This does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation in the schema, hindering the agent's ability to construct correct inputs.

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 the tool analyzes strategic options and returns a structured deliverable ('Analyseur d'options stratégiques', 'Returns a structured, audited deliverable'). It references a case study to illustrate capability. However, it does not differentiate from siblings beyond the 'CSO' mention; there are many similar strategy tools in the sibling list.

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 usage for C-suite strategic options analysis with 'Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CSO)'. It provides context about server-side validation and a reference case. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving guidance minimal.

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