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 the deliverable is audited, providing some extra context about validation and quality. No contradictions 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?

Four sentences, compact and front-loaded with the tool's name and purpose. The reference case adds context but may be considered extraneous. Overall, appropriately concise.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain what specific inputs are needed or the structure of the returned deliverable, relying on an external notion of 'documented case fields.'

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 14%, and the description does not explain any parameter fields beyond saying 'send the documented case fields.' The reference case hints at metrics like FTE, ARR, and department plans but does not map to schema 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 states 'Planification capacitaire' and indicates it returns a structured, audited deliverable. The reference case (Gapup Hub — 22→48 FTE, ARR growth) clarifies it's about headcount/capacity planning. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling planning tools like growth_path_architect or capital_strategy.

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 over alternatives. The implied use case is capacity planning from the name and description, but no exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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