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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool returns a deliverable and validates inputs server-side, but does not elaborate on latency, cost, or any side effects. No contradiction 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 relatively short but includes a verbose reference case (e.g., 'Upsell 8 comptes · €127k potentiel · Top 3 : Alan+Qonto+Pennylane · Playbook 5 étapes') which adds noise without improving clarity. The first sentence could be more front-loaded. Conciseness is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 complexity (6 parameters, 3 required, deeply nested objects, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output structure, how results are delivered, or what decisions the tools supports. The agent lacks context 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 description coverage is only 17%, and the description does not compensate. It merely states 'send the documented case fields' without explaining the meaning, format, or constraints of required parameters like company, product, or accounts. Parameters with enums and nested objects are left undescribed.

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 returns a structured, audited deliverable for upselling, and mentions a reference case. However, it does not explicitly state the core action (e.g., analyzing accounts for upsell opportunities) and fails to distinguish it from sibling tools like cross_sell_reco or renewal_optimizer. The purpose is somewhat clear but lacks precision and differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It only mentions that inputs are validated server-side and references a past case, but does not specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left without criteria to choose this over similar tools.

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