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

The readOnlyHint: true annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds that inputs are validated server-side and that the deliverable is 'audited', but it does not mention potential latency, async behavior, or other operational traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 lengthy reference case ('Notion B2B Enterprise...') that is not directly instructive and may confuse the agent. The structure mixes purpose with promotional content, preventing it from being a crisp, front-loaded directive.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the structured deliverable contains, but it only says 'audited deliverable'. It does not mention the async option, prerequisites, or how the various input fields (focus, knownTriggers) affect the output. The tool is complex enough to warrant more completion.

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 20%, and the description does not compensate. It merely says 'send the documented case fields' without explaining the semantics of key fields like company.arrTotalEur, accounts.usageScore, or ownership.averageQuotaPerAeEur. This is insufficient for a complex nested schema.

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 identifies the tool as mapping account expansion ('Mapping d'expansion comptes') and mentions its output as a structured, audited deliverable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like upsell_hunter or cross_sell_reco, and the reference case adds some ambiguity.

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 a C-suite/strategic context ('CRO expertise') and notes server-side validation, but it does not state when to use this tool over alternatives such as churn_defender or renewal_optimizer, nor does it give exclusions.

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