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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that inputs are validated server-side and the deliverable is 'structured, audited', which is some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose processing time, cost, or what the audit entails, so it does not go far beyond the 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 concise at three sentences, with no redundant prose. The reference case adds a concrete example but could be considered extraneous. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose, though the French phrasing might reduce clarity for non-French speakers.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and sparse schema descriptions, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the deliverable contains, how the inputs are used, or what the return format is. The reference case is helpful but insufficient to guide an agent on invocation and result interpretation.

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 9%, with only the 'async' parameter described. The description does not explain any of the 10 required parameters (e.g., arrCurrent, topChannels, icpDescription). The phrase 'documented case fields' is opaque and does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. This is a significant gap for a tool with 11 parameters.

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 creating a marketing battle plan deliverable, with a specific audience (CMO) and a reference example. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like positioning_strategist or growth_path_architect, so purpose is clear but differentiation is weak.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'send the documented case fields' is an instruction for invocation, not a usage guideline. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or suitable scenarios beyond the implied need for a marketing battle plan.

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