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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that inputs are validated server-side and the result is 'audited,' which is useful context. However, it omits the async behavior indicated by the async parameter in the schema and does not describe error responses or output structure.

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 short but includes filler like 'Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise' and 'Reference case: Cas démo.' These lines do not earn their place, and the remaining sentences are too vague to be actionable, making it under-specified rather than 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 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not clarify what the deliverable contains, how to structure inputs, or when to use the async option. The lack of output schema and related siblings further increases the need for a richer description.

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 13%, and the description provides no parameter-level details. Saying 'send the documented case fields' is circular and does not help the agent understand the complex nested objects (company, perimeter, scope2Sources) or their required subfields.

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 says 'Roadmap carbone' and 'Returns a structured, audited deliverable,' but it does not specify what a carbon roadmap entails or how it differs from siblings like carbon_footprint_calculator or sustainability_report. The verb 'Returns' is generic, and the reference case 'Cas démo — Roadmap carbone' provides no functional clarity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'documented case fields' implies prerequisites but they are not explained, and no exclusions, recommended scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools are provided.

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