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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that the output is 'a structured, audited deliverable' and that inputs are 'validated server-side'. The reference case gives a concrete example of output metrics (21 anomalies, €487k at risk), providing some behavioral context 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 short but padded with cryptic branding ('Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (RISK)') that adds no informational value. The reference case provides some concreteness but is not enough to justify the wasted words. Front-loading the name rather than the action makes it less effective.

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 a complex input schema (nested objects, 5 parameters) and no output schema, the description should explain what the deliverable contains, how results are scored, and what anomalies mean. The reference case hints at outputs (anomalies, risk amount) but does not define the deliverable structure or interpretation. No mention of async behavior or error handling.

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%, with only the 'async' parameter described. The tool description does not explain the meaning of 'company', 'analysisPeriodDays', 'transactionVolumes', or 'focus'. The phrase 'send the documented case fields' references documentation that isn't provided, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Détecteur de fraude' which essentially restates the tool name, then adds vague branding ('Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (RISK)'). It mentions a deliverable and a reference case, but does not clearly state what fraud detection action is performed or on what data. This makes it distinguishable from siblings only by name, not by a precise purpose.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling fraud and risk tools. Phrases like 'send the documented case fields' concern input submission, not usage context. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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