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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate them. It adds that the deliverable is 'audited' and that inputs are 'validated server-side', which provides some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't detail the response format, potential costs (Gapup agent-payable), or asynchronous behavior beyond what the schema already mentions for async.

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: two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The reference case provides helpful context without excessive length. However, the phrase 'Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CSO)' is somewhat jargon-heavy and could be clearer, slightly detracting from the front-loaded clarity.

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 5 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't specify what the 'structured, audited deliverable' will contain, how to interpret it, or how the reference case relates to the expected output. The async parameter is only documented in the schema, not in the description, and there's no mention of error handling or edge cases. This makes the tool hard to invoke correctly without additional information.

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% (only async has a description), so the description must compensate. It merely says 'send the documented case fields' without explaining any parameter meanings. The nested object property names (company, growthPlan, financialPosition, founderConstraints) are self-descriptive, but the description adds no semantics or guidance on how to fill them, leaving a significant gap.

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's a 'Stratégie de financement' that returns a 'structured, audited deliverable', which clearly identifies the tool's function and output type. The reference to a specific case (Alan assurance santé SaaS) and sequence Seed→A→B→C adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly mention how it differs from closely related sibling tools like cap_table_strategist or funding_hunter, so it's not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'send the documented case fields' implies the user should have case data, but it doesn't clarify suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The reference case hints at early-stage funding rounds but stops short of actionable usage instructions.

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